Analysis of errors in diffusion kurtosis imaging caused by slice crosstalk in simultaneous multi‐slice imaging

Abstract

Simultaneous multi‐slice (SMS) imaging techniques accelerate diffusion MRI data acquisition. However, slice separation is imperfect and results in residual signal leakage between the simultaneously excited slices. The resulting consistent bias may adversely affect diffusion model parameter estimation. Although this bias is usually small and might not affect the simplified diffusion tensor model significantly, higher order diffusion models such as kurtosis are likely to be more susceptible to such effects. In this work, two SMS reconstruction techniques and an alternative acquisition approach were tested to quantify the effects of slice crosstalk on diffusion kurtosis parameters. In reconstruction, two popular slice separation algorithms, slice GRAPPA and split‐slice GRAPPA, are evaluated to determine the effect of slice leakage on diffusion kurtosis metrics. For the alternative acquisition, the slice pairings were varied across diffusion weighted images such that the signal leakage does not come from the same overlapped slice for all diffusion encodings. Simulation results demonstrated the potential benefits of randomizing the slice pairings. However, various experimental factors confounded the advantages of slice pair randomization. In volunteer experiments, region‐of‐interest analyses found high metric errors with each of the SMS acquisitions and reconstructions in the brain white matter.

Comparing multiband and singleband EPI in NODDI at 3 T: what are the implications for reproducibility and study sample sizes?

“…The study revealed a bias in the MB-derived maps and demonstrated an increase in uncertainty for each parameter when the TR is short. Olson et al [29] examined the effects of slice crosstalk on diffusion parameters in simultaneous multislice imaging. They found that interslice leakage between simultaneously excited slices had an effect on the reproducibility of diffusion metrics from higher level dMRI models more than DTI metrics.…”