Quantitative assessment of susceptibility-weighted imaging processing methods

Ningzhi Li, Wen Tung Wang, Pascal Sati, Dzung L. Pham, John A. Butman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate different susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) phase processing methods and parameter selection, thereby improving understanding of potential artifacts, as well as facilitating choice of methodology in clinical settings.

Materials and Methods: Two major phase processing methods, homodyne-filtering and phase unwrapping-high pass (HP) filtering, were investigated with various phase unwrapping approaches, filter sizes, and filter types. Magnitude and phase images were acquired from a healthy subject and brain injury patients on a 3T clinical Siemens MRI system. The results were evaluated based on image contrast-to-noise ratio and presence of processing artifacts.

Results: When using a relatively small filter size (32 pixels for the matrix size 512 × 512 pixels), all homodynefiltering methods were subject to phase errors leading to 2% to 3% masked brain area in lower and middle axial slices. All phase unwrapping-filtering/smoothing approaches demonstrated fewer phase errors and artifacts compared to the homodyne-filtering approaches. For performing phase unwrapping, Fourier-based methods, although less accurate, were 2-4 orders of magnitude faster than the PRELUDE, Goldstein, and Quality-guide methods.

Conclusion: Although homodyne-filtering approaches are faster and more straightforward, phase unwrapping followed by HP filtering approaches perform more accurately in a wider variety of acquisition scenarios.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1463-1473
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Artifacts
Brain Injuries
Noise
Healthy Volunteers
Brain

Keywords

  • Homodyne filter
  • Image contrast
  • Phase unwrapping
  • Susceptibility weighted imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Quantitative assessment of susceptibility-weighted imaging processing methods. / Li, Ningzhi; Wang, Wen Tung; Sati, Pascal; Pham, Dzung L.; Butman, John A.

In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 40, No. 6, 01.12.2014, p. 1463-1473.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Li, Ningzhi ; Wang, Wen Tung ; Sati, Pascal ; Pham, Dzung L. ; Butman, John A. / Quantitative assessment of susceptibility-weighted imaging processing methods. In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2014 ; Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 1463-1473.
@article{04bc572120474f3a9ba506c69b18917d,
title = "Quantitative assessment of susceptibility-weighted imaging processing methods",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate different susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) phase processing methods and parameter selection, thereby improving understanding of potential artifacts, as well as facilitating choice of methodology in clinical settings.Materials and Methods: Two major phase processing methods, homodyne-filtering and phase unwrapping-high pass (HP) filtering, were investigated with various phase unwrapping approaches, filter sizes, and filter types. Magnitude and phase images were acquired from a healthy subject and brain injury patients on a 3T clinical Siemens MRI system. The results were evaluated based on image contrast-to-noise ratio and presence of processing artifacts.Results: When using a relatively small filter size (32 pixels for the matrix size 512 × 512 pixels), all homodynefiltering methods were subject to phase errors leading to 2{\%} to 3{\%} masked brain area in lower and middle axial slices. All phase unwrapping-filtering/smoothing approaches demonstrated fewer phase errors and artifacts compared to the homodyne-filtering approaches. For performing phase unwrapping, Fourier-based methods, although less accurate, were 2-4 orders of magnitude faster than the PRELUDE, Goldstein, and Quality-guide methods.Conclusion: Although homodyne-filtering approaches are faster and more straightforward, phase unwrapping followed by HP filtering approaches perform more accurately in a wider variety of acquisition scenarios.",
keywords = "Homodyne filter, Image contrast, Phase unwrapping, Susceptibility weighted imaging",
author = "Ningzhi Li and Wang, {Wen Tung} and Pascal Sati and Pham, {Dzung L.} and Butman, {John A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jmri.24501",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "1463--1473",
journal = "Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "1053-1807",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative assessment of susceptibility-weighted imaging processing methods

AU - Li, Ningzhi

AU - Wang, Wen Tung

AU - Sati, Pascal

AU - Pham, Dzung L.

AU - Butman, John A.

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate different susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) phase processing methods and parameter selection, thereby improving understanding of potential artifacts, as well as facilitating choice of methodology in clinical settings.Materials and Methods: Two major phase processing methods, homodyne-filtering and phase unwrapping-high pass (HP) filtering, were investigated with various phase unwrapping approaches, filter sizes, and filter types. Magnitude and phase images were acquired from a healthy subject and brain injury patients on a 3T clinical Siemens MRI system. The results were evaluated based on image contrast-to-noise ratio and presence of processing artifacts.Results: When using a relatively small filter size (32 pixels for the matrix size 512 × 512 pixels), all homodynefiltering methods were subject to phase errors leading to 2% to 3% masked brain area in lower and middle axial slices. All phase unwrapping-filtering/smoothing approaches demonstrated fewer phase errors and artifacts compared to the homodyne-filtering approaches. For performing phase unwrapping, Fourier-based methods, although less accurate, were 2-4 orders of magnitude faster than the PRELUDE, Goldstein, and Quality-guide methods.Conclusion: Although homodyne-filtering approaches are faster and more straightforward, phase unwrapping followed by HP filtering approaches perform more accurately in a wider variety of acquisition scenarios.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate different susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) phase processing methods and parameter selection, thereby improving understanding of potential artifacts, as well as facilitating choice of methodology in clinical settings.Materials and Methods: Two major phase processing methods, homodyne-filtering and phase unwrapping-high pass (HP) filtering, were investigated with various phase unwrapping approaches, filter sizes, and filter types. Magnitude and phase images were acquired from a healthy subject and brain injury patients on a 3T clinical Siemens MRI system. The results were evaluated based on image contrast-to-noise ratio and presence of processing artifacts.Results: When using a relatively small filter size (32 pixels for the matrix size 512 × 512 pixels), all homodynefiltering methods were subject to phase errors leading to 2% to 3% masked brain area in lower and middle axial slices. All phase unwrapping-filtering/smoothing approaches demonstrated fewer phase errors and artifacts compared to the homodyne-filtering approaches. For performing phase unwrapping, Fourier-based methods, although less accurate, were 2-4 orders of magnitude faster than the PRELUDE, Goldstein, and Quality-guide methods.Conclusion: Although homodyne-filtering approaches are faster and more straightforward, phase unwrapping followed by HP filtering approaches perform more accurately in a wider variety of acquisition scenarios.

KW - Homodyne filter

KW - Image contrast

KW - Phase unwrapping

KW - Susceptibility weighted imaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84910011943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84910011943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jmri.24501

DO - 10.1002/jmri.24501

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 1463

EP - 1473

JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 1053-1807

IS - 6

ER -