2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative water content mapping at clinically relevant field strengths: A comparative study at 1.5T and 3T

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
57
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
8
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The resulting estimates for f in corpus callosum were, as expected, virtually identical for 3T and 7 T (0.266 versus 0.268) and consistent with what would be expected based on the close to 30% fraction of proteins and lipids (and hence an approximately MP fraction of 30%, considering that the hydrogen proton fraction in proteins and lipids is similar to that in water) (Randall 1938, Fatouros and Marmarou 1999). Our estimates furthermore appear consistent with previous MRI measurements of proton density not relying on MT contrast, which found WM water content to be around 70% (Volz, Noth et al 2012, Volz, Noth et al 2012, Mezer, Yeatman et al 2013, Abbas, Gras et al 2015). Nevertheless, our estimate of f is substantially higher than previous MT studies (Davies, Tozer et al 2004, Sled, Levesque et al 2004, Yarnykh and Yuan 2004, Stanisz, Odrobina et al 2005, Yarnykh, Bowen et al 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The resulting estimates for f in corpus callosum were, as expected, virtually identical for 3T and 7 T (0.266 versus 0.268) and consistent with what would be expected based on the close to 30% fraction of proteins and lipids (and hence an approximately MP fraction of 30%, considering that the hydrogen proton fraction in proteins and lipids is similar to that in water) (Randall 1938, Fatouros and Marmarou 1999). Our estimates furthermore appear consistent with previous MRI measurements of proton density not relying on MT contrast, which found WM water content to be around 70% (Volz, Noth et al 2012, Volz, Noth et al 2012, Mezer, Yeatman et al 2013, Abbas, Gras et al 2015). Nevertheless, our estimate of f is substantially higher than previous MT studies (Davies, Tozer et al 2004, Sled, Levesque et al 2004, Yarnykh and Yuan 2004, Stanisz, Odrobina et al 2005, Yarnykh, Bowen et al 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In contrast, the k WM are similar to literature values (1.4–2 s −1 ) . Compared with estimates based on the nonwater content of tissue (23–26% for GP, 18–21% for Put, and 17–19% for NC ), our MT‐based estimates are somewhat low but not entirely unreasonable given the uncertainty in gray‐matter 1 H content.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Instead, we selected published data in which researchers carefully measured several tissue‐specific physical parameters, such as their EPs, water content, and relaxation times, by different methodologies, choosing only data that correspond to healthy human adult (ages 20–40 years old) tissues. We obtained average W values from several published water‐content studies , trying to compensate for any measurement discrepancies or biases. The same procedure was used to obtain average T 1 values at 3 T ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%