常规多元件射频线圈QC测试信噪比评估技术的比较

James Harkin , Cameron Ingham
{"title":"常规多元件射频线圈QC测试信噪比评估技术的比较","authors":"James Harkin ,&nbsp;Cameron Ingham","doi":"10.1016/j.ipemt.2022.100012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the UK, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) provides guidance to Medical Physics departments on appropriate Quality Control (QC) tests to evaluate MRI scanners used in routine clinical practice. The method recommended for the rigorous annual assessment of the SNR produced by RF coils uses a sequence and regions of interest (ROIs) recommended by IPEM, and calculates SNR through a subtraction calculation (<em>IPEM recommended Method</em>). This method was compared to alternative methods proposed by NessAiver at the 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine meeting in their talk on RF coil testing. Comparisons were completed for sequences and regions of interest (ROIs) recommended by IPEM and NessAiver. Testing was performed at 1.5 T using the scanner’s integrated body coil and at 3.0 T using a peripheral Head/Neck coil. Calculation of SNR using the mean of the background noise, assessed using the NessAiver recommended sequence and ROIs (<em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em>), typically offered the lowest variability in SNR results. Additionally, the SNR results produced by the <em>IPEM Recommended Method</em> were less repeatable than those from the <em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em> (p<span><math><mo>&lt;</mo></math></span>0.001). Furthermore, the significance level to which a simulated reduction in SNR could be detected using the <em>IPEM Recommended Method</em> (p<span><math><mo>&lt;</mo></math></span>0.001) was less than with the <em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em> (p<span><math><mo>≥</mo></math></span>0.0031). Finally, when comparing the test duration of each method, use of the <em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em> results in a 90% reduction in acquisition time per SNR result, when compared to the <em>IPEM Recommended Method</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73507,"journal":{"name":"IPEM-translation","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100012"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667258822000097/pdfft?md5=18c9bd0cedea3190d70ab73b7506c6df&pid=1-s2.0-S2667258822000097-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of SNR Assessment Techniques for Routine Multi-Element RF Coil QC Testing\",\"authors\":\"James Harkin ,&nbsp;Cameron Ingham\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ipemt.2022.100012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the UK, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) provides guidance to Medical Physics departments on appropriate Quality Control (QC) tests to evaluate MRI scanners used in routine clinical practice. The method recommended for the rigorous annual assessment of the SNR produced by RF coils uses a sequence and regions of interest (ROIs) recommended by IPEM, and calculates SNR through a subtraction calculation (<em>IPEM recommended Method</em>). This method was compared to alternative methods proposed by NessAiver at the 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine meeting in their talk on RF coil testing. Comparisons were completed for sequences and regions of interest (ROIs) recommended by IPEM and NessAiver. Testing was performed at 1.5 T using the scanner’s integrated body coil and at 3.0 T using a peripheral Head/Neck coil. Calculation of SNR using the mean of the background noise, assessed using the NessAiver recommended sequence and ROIs (<em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em>), typically offered the lowest variability in SNR results. Additionally, the SNR results produced by the <em>IPEM Recommended Method</em> were less repeatable than those from the <em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em> (p<span><math><mo>&lt;</mo></math></span>0.001). Furthermore, the significance level to which a simulated reduction in SNR could be detected using the <em>IPEM Recommended Method</em> (p<span><math><mo>&lt;</mo></math></span>0.001) was less than with the <em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em> (p<span><math><mo>≥</mo></math></span>0.0031). Finally, when comparing the test duration of each method, use of the <em>NessAiver Noise-Average Method</em> results in a 90% reduction in acquisition time per SNR result, when compared to the <em>IPEM Recommended Method</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IPEM-translation\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100012\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667258822000097/pdfft?md5=18c9bd0cedea3190d70ab73b7506c6df&pid=1-s2.0-S2667258822000097-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IPEM-translation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667258822000097\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IPEM-translation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667258822000097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在英国,医学物理与工程研究所(IPEM)为医学物理系提供了适当的质量控制(QC)测试指导,以评估常规临床实践中使用的MRI扫描仪。推荐用于射频线圈产生的信噪比严格年度评估的方法使用IPEM推荐的序列和感兴趣区域(roi),并通过减法计算(IPEM推荐方法)计算信噪比。该方法与nesaiver在2019年美国医学物理学家协会会议上关于射频线圈测试的演讲中提出的替代方法进行了比较。比较IPEM和NessAiver推荐的序列和感兴趣区域(roi)。在1.5 T下使用扫描仪的集成体线圈进行测试,在3.0 T下使用外围头/颈线圈进行测试。使用nesaiver推荐的序列和roi (nesaiver噪声平均法)评估背景噪声的平均值来计算信噪比,通常可以提供最低的信噪比结果变异性。此外,IPEM推荐方法产生的信噪比结果的可重复性低于nesaiver噪声平均方法(p<0.001)。此外,使用IPEM推荐方法可以检测到模拟信噪比降低的显著性水平(p<0.001)小于使用nesaiver噪声平均方法(p≥0.0031)。最后,在比较每种方法的测试持续时间时,与IPEM推荐方法相比,使用nesaiver噪声平均方法可以将每个信噪比结果的采集时间减少90%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of SNR Assessment Techniques for Routine Multi-Element RF Coil QC Testing

In the UK, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) provides guidance to Medical Physics departments on appropriate Quality Control (QC) tests to evaluate MRI scanners used in routine clinical practice. The method recommended for the rigorous annual assessment of the SNR produced by RF coils uses a sequence and regions of interest (ROIs) recommended by IPEM, and calculates SNR through a subtraction calculation (IPEM recommended Method). This method was compared to alternative methods proposed by NessAiver at the 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine meeting in their talk on RF coil testing. Comparisons were completed for sequences and regions of interest (ROIs) recommended by IPEM and NessAiver. Testing was performed at 1.5 T using the scanner’s integrated body coil and at 3.0 T using a peripheral Head/Neck coil. Calculation of SNR using the mean of the background noise, assessed using the NessAiver recommended sequence and ROIs (NessAiver Noise-Average Method), typically offered the lowest variability in SNR results. Additionally, the SNR results produced by the IPEM Recommended Method were less repeatable than those from the NessAiver Noise-Average Method (p<0.001). Furthermore, the significance level to which a simulated reduction in SNR could be detected using the IPEM Recommended Method (p<0.001) was less than with the NessAiver Noise-Average Method (p0.0031). Finally, when comparing the test duration of each method, use of the NessAiver Noise-Average Method results in a 90% reduction in acquisition time per SNR result, when compared to the IPEM Recommended Method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
IPEM-translation
IPEM-translation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
63 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信