2013
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24593
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multipeak fat‐corrected complex R2* relaxometry: Theory, optimization, and clinical validation

Abstract: Purpose To develop R2* mapping techniques corrected for confounding factors and optimized for noise performance. Theory and Methods Conventional R2* mapping is affected by two key confounding factors: noise-related bias and the presence of fat in tissue. Noise floor effects introduce bias in magnitude-based reconstructions, particularly at high R2* values. The presence of fat, if uncorrected, introduces severe protocol-dependent bias. In this work, the bias/noise properties of different R2* mapping reconstru… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
184
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(190 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
5
184
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[24]. Hernando et al demonstrate the influence of this factor for R 2 * determination [25,26]. We expect also a certain influence on the SIR.…”
Section: Signal Noise (Snr)mentioning
confidence: 63%
“…[24]. Hernando et al demonstrate the influence of this factor for R 2 * determination [25,26]. We expect also a certain influence on the SIR.…”
Section: Signal Noise (Snr)mentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Iron-related R2* quantification is also dependent on the magnetic field strength and the quantitative MR protocol [6]. Nevertheless, hepatic R2* quantification seems to be reproducible at 1.5 T and 3 T [43] and using fat-corrected models might be more advantageous [6,22,44]. Further calibration studies with phantoms are necessary to guarantee robustness, precision, and reproducibility of the measurements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[4, 11, 13 -17]. At the same time many different acquisition protocols with variable scanning parameters and R2* estimation methods (magnitude vs. complex) have been used [18]. So far it is not clear if calibrations obtained in one study can easily be applied to other sites.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%