Input parameter sensitivity analysis and comparison of quantification models for continuous arterial spin labeling

Abstract

The regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) values determined using continuous arterial spin labeling (CASL) are subject to several sources of variability, including natural physiologic variations, sensitivity to the input parameters, and the use of different quantification models. To date, a thorough analysis of the impact of input parameters and the choice of quantification model has not been performed. These sources of variability were investigated through computer simulations using bootstrap techniques on actual CASL data. Coefficients of variation for representative single voxels were 6.7% for gray matter and 29% for white matter, and for eight-voxel regions of interest they were 4.5% for gray matter and 23% for white matter.

MR measurement of blood flow in the parotid gland without contrast medium: a functional study before and after gustatory stimulation

“…By subtraction of a further image taken without blood preparation, it is possible to create a quantitative map showing the amount of inflowing blood using the extended Bloch equations (15). However, this technique requires additional knowledge of perfusion characteristics of the tissue type under investigation (16,17).…”

Quantitative basal CBF and CBF fMRI of rhesus monkeys using three-coil continuous arterial spin labeling

“…In this study, we employed a widely used single-compartment CBF quantification model which ignores water exchange. Comparison of different CBF quantification models, including those accounting for water exchange across the blood-brain barrier, indicates that CBF values obtained using different models were overall similar although there are some distinct differences (Steger et al, 2005). Improving absolute CBF quantification remains an active area of research.…”

A novel continuous arterial spin labeling approach for CBF measurement in rats with reduced labeling time and optimized signal-to-noise ratio efficiency

“…For instance, the dynamic arterial spin labeling method developed by Barbier et al requires a spin-labeling time only less than 0.5 s, and allows simultaneous measurements of the vascular transit time and CBF [16]. However, one general shortcoming with these previous methods is that, with reduced spin-labeling time, the steady state of M b can no longer be achieved, making derivation of quantitative CBF mathematically complicated and dependent on additional parameters, such as proton density and T 1s [20].…”