Investigating the effect of masking and background field removal algorithms on the quality of QSM reconstructions using a realistic numerical head phantom.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Carlos Milovic, Patrick S Fuchs, Mathias Lambert, Oriana Arsenov, Oliver C Kiersnowski, Laxmi Muralidharan, Russell Murdoch, Jannette Nassar, Karin Shmueli
{"title":"Investigating the effect of masking and background field removal algorithms on the quality of QSM reconstructions using a realistic numerical head phantom.","authors":"Carlos Milovic, Patrick S Fuchs, Mathias Lambert, Oriana Arsenov, Oliver C Kiersnowski, Laxmi Muralidharan, Russell Murdoch, Jannette Nassar, Karin Shmueli","doi":"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background field removal (BFR) is an important step in the QSM pipeline, enabling the reconstruction of local susceptibility distributions by removing contributions from sources outside the region of interest (ROI). BFR requires calculation of a binary ROI mask, to which most BFR methods are sensitive. We investigated how masking, and errors in local field map estimation, impact the quality of QSM reconstructions. We used the 2019 QSM Reconstruction Challenge brain phantom to simulate multi-echo gradient echo acquisitions. Echoes were combined using complex fitting followed by unwrapping with SEGUE. Fifteen background field removal methods were applied using 4 local field masks. Local fields were compared with RMSE. Seven different QSM reconstruction algorithms were applied to the local fields and evaluated using the 2019 QSM Challenge metrics. For local field map estimation, PDF and MSMV performed best overall, although their performance was sensitive to the mask. V-SHARP and RESHARP were more robust to masking and showed good performance. LBV had low accuracy, which was improved by removing a polynomial fit. Surprisingly, this did not propagate to susceptibility, where LBV without polynomial fitting performed better. When paired with the Weak Harmonic QSM algorithm, LBV showed the best overall performance with low sensitivity to the mask; PDF and MSMV were next best. PDF and MSMV are robust choices for estimating local field maps and provide accurate QSM but can lead to susceptibility underestimation near brain boundaries. LBV is less reliable for local field map estimation but gives accurate results when used with weak harmonic QSM.</p>","PeriodicalId":19299,"journal":{"name":"NeuroImage","volume":" ","pages":"121499"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NeuroImage","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121499","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background field removal (BFR) is an important step in the QSM pipeline, enabling the reconstruction of local susceptibility distributions by removing contributions from sources outside the region of interest (ROI). BFR requires calculation of a binary ROI mask, to which most BFR methods are sensitive. We investigated how masking, and errors in local field map estimation, impact the quality of QSM reconstructions. We used the 2019 QSM Reconstruction Challenge brain phantom to simulate multi-echo gradient echo acquisitions. Echoes were combined using complex fitting followed by unwrapping with SEGUE. Fifteen background field removal methods were applied using 4 local field masks. Local fields were compared with RMSE. Seven different QSM reconstruction algorithms were applied to the local fields and evaluated using the 2019 QSM Challenge metrics. For local field map estimation, PDF and MSMV performed best overall, although their performance was sensitive to the mask. V-SHARP and RESHARP were more robust to masking and showed good performance. LBV had low accuracy, which was improved by removing a polynomial fit. Surprisingly, this did not propagate to susceptibility, where LBV without polynomial fitting performed better. When paired with the Weak Harmonic QSM algorithm, LBV showed the best overall performance with low sensitivity to the mask; PDF and MSMV were next best. PDF and MSMV are robust choices for estimating local field maps and provide accurate QSM but can lead to susceptibility underestimation near brain boundaries. LBV is less reliable for local field map estimation but gives accurate results when used with weak harmonic QSM.

研究了掩蔽和背景场去除算法对QSM重建质量的影响。
背景场去除(BFR)是QSM管道中的一个重要步骤,它通过去除感兴趣区域(ROI)以外的源的贡献来重建局部敏感性分布。BFR需要计算二进制ROI掩码,大多数BFR方法对二进制ROI掩码很敏感。我们研究了掩蔽和局部场图估计中的误差如何影响QSM重建的质量。我们使用2019年QSM重建挑战脑幻影来模拟多回波梯度回波采集。回声使用复杂的拟合组合,然后使用SEGUE展开。采用4个局部场掩模,采用15种背景场去除方法。局部场与RMSE比较。将七种不同的QSM重建算法应用于局部领域,并使用2019年QSM挑战指标进行评估。对于局部场图估计,PDF和MSMV总体上表现最好,尽管它们的性能对掩模敏感。V-SHARP和RESHARP对掩蔽的鲁棒性更强,表现出良好的性能。LBV精度较低,通过去除多项式拟合提高了精度。令人惊讶的是,这并没有传播到敏感性,没有多项式拟合的LBV表现更好。与弱谐波QSM算法配对时,LBV算法整体性能最佳,对掩模的灵敏度较低;其次是PDF和MSMV。PDF和MSMV是估计局部场图的可靠选择,并提供准确的QSM,但可能导致脑边界附近的易感性低估。LBV对局部场图估计的可靠性较差,但与弱谐波QSM一起使用时结果准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
NeuroImage
NeuroImage 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
809
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: NeuroImage, a Journal of Brain Function provides a vehicle for communicating important advances in acquiring, analyzing, and modelling neuroimaging data and in applying these techniques to the study of structure-function and brain-behavior relationships. Though the emphasis is on the macroscopic level of human brain organization, meso-and microscopic neuroimaging across all species will be considered if informative for understanding the aforementioned relationships.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信