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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1463-1473 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 1 2014 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -