Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine最新文献

Quantitative MRI has been an active area of research for decades and has produced a huge range of approaches with enormous potential for patient benefit. In many cases, however, there are challenges with reproducibility which have hampered clinical translation. Quantitative MRI is a form of measurement and like any other form of measurement it requires a supporting metrological framework to be fully consistent and compatible with the international system of units. This means not just expressing results in terms of seconds, meters, etc., but demonstrating consistency to their internationally recognized definitions. Such a framework for MRI is not yet complete, but a considerable amount of work has been done internationally towards building one. This article describes the current state of the art for MRI metrology, including a detailed description of metrological principles and how they are relevant to fully quantitative MRI. It also undertakes a gap analysis of where we are versus where we need to be to support reproducibility in MRI. It focusses particularly on the role and activities of national measurement institutes across the globe, illustrating the genuinely international and collaborative nature of the field.

In quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM), it is impossible to define an absolute reference for the reconstructed susceptibility values. Therefore, it has been suggested to use a relative reference, such as the mean susceptibility within an anatomical ROI. We investigated the theoretical basis of referencing, and what impact it may have on statistical ROI comparisons, particularly for clinical applications. We analysed a clinical epilepsy study and in-silico QSM reconstruction challenge data with various reference regions. The results are analysed as in a clinical study and resulting statistical variations are investigated from a theoretical point of view. We found that referencing has an impact on the significance of clinical findings. These effects may arise from a change in the precision of test statistics due to referencing. We also show potential biasing of results from referencing. Our findings suggest there may not be one "optimal" reference region, and care should always be taken with reference region selection depending on the specific pathology or cohort under investigation. Not explicitly referencing is less likely to lead to false positives than cherry picking a reference region to maximize statistically significant results. We encourage results to be published with their reference to facilitate future comparisons of datasets from different sources.

Over the past two decades, ultra-high field (UHF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has evolved from pure investigational devices to now systems with CE and FDA clearance for clinical use. UHF MRI offers enhanced diagnostic value, especially in brain and musculoskeletal imaging, aiding in the differential diagnosis of conditions like multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. However, to fully harness the potential of UHF, multi-center studies and quality assurance (QA) protocols are critical for ensuring reproducibility across different systems and sites. This becomes even more vital as the UHF community comprises three generations of magnet design, and many UHF sites are currently upgrading to the latest system architecture. Hence, this review presents multi-center QA measurements that have been performed at UHF, in particular from larger consortia through their "travelling heads" studies. Despite the technical variability between different vendors and system generations, these studies have shown a high level of reproducibility in structural and quantitative imaging. Furthermore, the review highlights the ongoing challenges in QA, such as transmitter performance drift and the need for a standard reliable multi-tissue phantom for RF coil calibration, which are crucial for advancing UHF MRI in both clinical and research applications.

Objectives: We evaluated a quality control (QC) phantom designed to mimic diffusion characteristics and white matter fiber tracts in the brain. We hypothesized that acquisition of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data on different vendors and over multiple repeated measures would not contribute to significant variability in calculated diffusion tensor scalar metrics such as fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD).

Materials and methods: The DTI QC phantom was scanned using a 32-direction DTI sequence on General Electric (GE), Siemens, and Philips 3 Tesla scanners. Motion probing gradients (MPGs) were investigated as a source of variance in our statistical design, and data were acquired on GE and Siemens scanners using GE, Siemens, and Philips vendor MPGs for 32 directions. In total, 8 repeated scans were made for each GE/Siemens combination of vendor and MPGs with 8 repeated scans on a Philips machine using its stock DTI sequence. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVAs to investigate repeat scan and vendor variances and 3-way ANOVAs with repeat, MPG, and vendor as factors.

Results: No statistical differences (i.e., P > 0.05) were found in any DTI scalar metrics (FA, MD) or for any factor, suggesting system constancy across imaging platforms and the specified phantom's reliability and reproducibility across vendors and conditions.

Discussion: A DTI QC phantom demonstrates that DTI measurements maintain their consistency across different MRI systems and can contribute to a standard that is more reliable for quantitative MRI analyses.

Objective: Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is a technique that has been demonstrated to be highly repeatable in the brain. As QSM is applied to other parts of the body, it is necessary to investigate metrics for quantifying repeatability, to enable optimization of repeatable QSM reconstruction pipelines beyond the brain.

Materials and methods: MRI data were acquired in the head and neck (HN) region in ten healthy volunteers, who underwent six acquisitions across two sessions. QSMs were reconstructed using six representative state-of-the-art techniques. Repeatability of the susceptibility values was compared using voxel-wise metrics (normalized root mean squared error and XSIM) and ROI-based metrics (within-subject and between-subject standard deviation, coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)).

Results: Both within-subject and between-subject variations were smaller than the variation between QSM dipole inversion methods, in most ROIs. autoNDI produced the most repeatable susceptibility values, with ICC > 0.75 in three of six HN ROIs with an average ICC of 0.66 across all ROIs. Joint consideration of standard deviation and ICC offered the best metric of repeatability for comparisons between QSM methods, given typical distributions of positive and negative QSM values.

Discussion: Repeatability of QSM in the HN region is highly dependent on the dipole inversion method chosen, but the most repeatable methods (autoNDI, QSMnet, TFI) are only moderately repeatable in most HN ROIs.

MRI acquisition and reconstruction research has transformed into a computation-driven field. As methods become more sophisticated, compute-heavy, and data-hungry, efforts to reproduce them become more difficult. While the computational MRI research community has made great leaps toward reproducible computational science, there are few tailored guidelines or standards for users to follow. In this review article, we develop a cookbook to facilitate reproducible research for MRI acquisition and reconstruction. Like any good cookbook, we list several recipes, each providing a basic standard on how to make computational MRI research reproducible. And like cooking, we show example flavours where reproducibility may fail due to under-specification. We structure the article, so that the cookbook itself serves as an example of reproducible research by providing sequence and reconstruction definitions as well as data to reproduce the experimental results in the figures. We also propose a community-driven effort to compile an evolving list of best practices for making computational MRI research reproducible.

The premise of MRI as a reliable measurement device is limited by proprietary barriers and inconsistent implementations, which prevent the establishment of measurement uncertainties. As a result, biomedical studies that rely on these methods are plagued by systematic variance, undermining the perceived promise of quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) and hindering their clinical translation. This review explores the added value of open-source measurement pipelines in minimizing variability sources that would otherwise remain unknown. First, we introduce a tiered benchmarking framework (from black-box to glass-box) that exposes how opacity at different workflow stages propagates measurement uncertainty. Second, we provide a concise glossary to promote consistent terminology for strategies that enhance reproducibility before acquisition or enable valid post-hoc pooling of QIBs. Building on this foundation, we present two illustrative measurement workflows that decouple workflow logic from the orchestration of computational processes in an MRI measurement pipeline, rooted in the core principles of modularity and portability. Designed as accessible entry points for implementation, these examples serve as practical guides, helping users adapt the frameworks to their specific needs and facilitating collaboration. Through critical evaluation of existing approaches, we discuss how standardized workflows can help identify outstanding challenges in translating glass-box frameworks into clinical scanner environments. Ultimately, achieving this goal will require coordinated efforts from QIB developers, regulators, industry partners, and clinicians alike.

Objective: This study aims to quantify the repeatability of a 3D Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) research protocol in the context of a scanner software upgrade. All of MRI assumes consistent hardware performance and raw data pre-processing on the acquisition side. Software upgrades can affect hardware specifications and reconstruction chain parameters. Understanding how vendor-provided software upgrades vary MRF-derived T1 and T2 values is crucial for its application in different settings.

Materials and methods: Eight healthy volunteers were imaged with an in-house developed 3D MRF pulse sequence using a 3T scanner before and after a software upgrade (VA31A to VA50A, MAGNETOM Vida, Siemens Healthineers). Online MRF reconstruction using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) timeseries compression and B1+ correction was performed. The study involved test-retest repeatability assessment and a comparison of pre- and post-upgrade data based on automatically extracted T1 and T2 values from MNI-152 Harvard-Oxford Subcortical Structural Atlas regions.

Results: Significant mismatches were found directly after the upgrade. However, after an information exchange with the vendor, the 3D-MRF sequence showed consistent repeatability in both intra-version test-retest scenarios and cross-version comparisons: $-$ 1.16 ± 3.18% variability in T1 and $-$ 0.54 ± 4.84% in T2 for intra-version tests, and $-$ 0.83 ± 3.68% (T1) and $-$ 0.05 ± 5.81% (T2) variability for cross-version comparisons.

Discussion: The study shows the reliable performance of 3D MRF protocols across software upgrades is possible, but it also highlights the importance of detailed evaluation and vendor collaboration in ensuring consistency. These findings support the application of MRF in longitudinal studies and emphasize the need for systematic assessments following hardware or software modifications.