{"title":"磁化传递可解释磁共振成像文献中的大部分 T_1$ 变异性","authors":"Jakob Assländer","doi":"arxiv-2409.05318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To identify the predominant source of the $T_1$ variability\ndescribed in the literature, which ranges from 0.6 - 1.1 s for brain white\nmatter at 3 T. Methods: 25 $T_1$-mapping methods from the literature were simulated with a\nmono-exponential and magnetization-transfer (MT) models, each followed by\nmono-exponential fitting. A single set of model parameters was assumed for the\nsimulation of all methods, and these parameters were estimated by fitting the\nsimulation-based to the corresponding literature $T_1$ values of white matter\nat 3 T. Results: Mono-exponential simulations suggest good inter-method\nreproducibility and fail to explain the highly variable $T_1$ estimates in the\nliterature. In contrast, MT simulations suggest that a mono-exponential fit\nresults in a variable $T_1$ and explain up to 62% of the literature's\nvariability. Conclusion: The results suggest that a mono-exponential model does not\nadequately describe longitudinal relaxation in biological tissue. Therefore,\n$T_1$ in biological tissue should be considered only a semi-quantitative metric\nthat is inherently contingent upon the imaging methodology; and comparisons\nbetween different $T_1$-mapping methods and the use of simplistic spin systems\n- such as doped-water phantoms - for validation should be viewed with caution.","PeriodicalId":501378,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - PHYS - Medical Physics","volume":"122 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Magnetization transfer explains most of the $T_1$ variability in the MRI literature\",\"authors\":\"Jakob Assländer\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.05318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To identify the predominant source of the $T_1$ variability\\ndescribed in the literature, which ranges from 0.6 - 1.1 s for brain white\\nmatter at 3 T. Methods: 25 $T_1$-mapping methods from the literature were simulated with a\\nmono-exponential and magnetization-transfer (MT) models, each followed by\\nmono-exponential fitting. A single set of model parameters was assumed for the\\nsimulation of all methods, and these parameters were estimated by fitting the\\nsimulation-based to the corresponding literature $T_1$ values of white matter\\nat 3 T. Results: Mono-exponential simulations suggest good inter-method\\nreproducibility and fail to explain the highly variable $T_1$ estimates in the\\nliterature. In contrast, MT simulations suggest that a mono-exponential fit\\nresults in a variable $T_1$ and explain up to 62% of the literature's\\nvariability. Conclusion: The results suggest that a mono-exponential model does not\\nadequately describe longitudinal relaxation in biological tissue. Therefore,\\n$T_1$ in biological tissue should be considered only a semi-quantitative metric\\nthat is inherently contingent upon the imaging methodology; and comparisons\\nbetween different $T_1$-mapping methods and the use of simplistic spin systems\\n- such as doped-water phantoms - for validation should be viewed with caution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - PHYS - Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - PHYS - Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.05318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - PHYS - Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.05318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Magnetization transfer explains most of the $T_1$ variability in the MRI literature
Purpose: To identify the predominant source of the $T_1$ variability
described in the literature, which ranges from 0.6 - 1.1 s for brain white
matter at 3 T. Methods: 25 $T_1$-mapping methods from the literature were simulated with a
mono-exponential and magnetization-transfer (MT) models, each followed by
mono-exponential fitting. A single set of model parameters was assumed for the
simulation of all methods, and these parameters were estimated by fitting the
simulation-based to the corresponding literature $T_1$ values of white matter
at 3 T. Results: Mono-exponential simulations suggest good inter-method
reproducibility and fail to explain the highly variable $T_1$ estimates in the
literature. In contrast, MT simulations suggest that a mono-exponential fit
results in a variable $T_1$ and explain up to 62% of the literature's
variability. Conclusion: The results suggest that a mono-exponential model does not
adequately describe longitudinal relaxation in biological tissue. Therefore,
$T_1$ in biological tissue should be considered only a semi-quantitative metric
that is inherently contingent upon the imaging methodology; and comparisons
between different $T_1$-mapping methods and the use of simplistic spin systems
- such as doped-water phantoms - for validation should be viewed with caution.