These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Tailored magnetic resonance fingerprinting.
    Author: Poojar P, Qian E, Fernandes TT, Nunes RG, Fung M, Quarterman P, Jambawalikar SR, Lignelli A, Geethanath S.
    Journal: Magn Reson Imaging; 2023 Jun; 99():81-90. PubMed ID: 36764630.
    Abstract:
    Neuroimaging of certain pathologies requires both multi-parametric qualitative and quantitative imaging. The role of the quantitative MRI (qMRI) is well accepted but suffers from long acquisition times leading to patient discomfort, especially in geriatric and pediatric patients. Previous studies show that synthetic MRI can be used in order to reduce the scan time and provide qMRI as well as multi-contrast data. However, this approach suffers from artifacts such as partial volume and flow. In order to increase the scan efficiency (the number of contrasts and quantitative maps acquired per unit time), we designed, simulated, and demonstrated rapid, simultaneous, multi-contrast qualitative (T1 weighted, T1 fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2 weighted, water, and fat), and quantitative imaging (T1 and T2 maps) through the approach of tailored MR fingerprinting (TMRF) to cover whole-brain in approximately four minutes. We performed TMRF on in vivo four healthy human brains and in vitro ISMRM/NIST phantom and compared with vendor supplied gold standard (GS) and MRF sequences. All scans were performed on a 3 T GE Premier system and images were reconstructed offline using MATLAB. The reconstructed qualitative images were then subjected to custom DL denoising and gradient anisotropic diffusion denoising. The quantitative tissue parametric maps were reconstructed using a dense neural network to gain computational speed compared to dictionary matching. The grey matter and white matter tissues in qualitative and quantitative data for the in vivo datasets were segmented semi-automatically. The SNR and mean contrasts were plotted and compared across all three methods. The GS images show better SNR in all four subjects compared to MRF and TMRF (GS > TMRF>MRF). The T1 and T2 values of MRF are relatively overestimated as compared to GS and TMRF. The scan efficiency for TMRF is 1.72 min-1 which is higher compared to GS (0.32 min-1) and MRF (0.90 min-1).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]