% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Abbas:189738,
author = {Abbas, Zaheer and Gras, Vincent and Möllenhoff, Klaus and
Oros-Peusquens, Ana-Maria and Shah, Nadim Joni},
title = {{Q}uantitative water content mapping at clinically relevant
field strengths: {A} comparative study at 1.5{T} and 3{T}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
volume = {106},
issn = {1053-8119},
address = {Orlando, Fla.},
publisher = {Academic Press},
reportid = {FZJ-2015-02770},
pages = {404 - 413},
year = {2015},
abstract = {PurposeQuantitative water content mapping in vivo using MRI
is a very valuable technique to detect, monitor and
understand diseases of the brain. At 1.5 T, this technology
has already been successfully used, but it has only recently
been applied at 3 T because of significantly increased RF
field inhomogeneity at the higher field strength. To
validate the technology at 3 T, we estimate and compare in
vivo quantitative water content maps at 1.5 T and 3 T
obtained with a protocol proposed recently for 3 T
MRI.MethodsThe proposed MRI protocol was applied on twenty
healthy subjects at 1.5 T and 3 T; the same post-processing
algorithms were used to estimate the water content maps. The
1.5 T and 3 T maps were subsequently aligned and compared on
a voxel-by-voxel basis. Statistical analysis was performed
to detect possible differences between the estimated 1.5 T
and 3 T water maps.ResultsOur analysis indicates that the
water content values obtained at 1.5 T and 3 T did not show
significant systematic differences. On average the
difference did not exceed the standard deviation of the
water content at 1.5 T. Furthermore, the contrast-to-noise
ratio (CNR) of the estimated water content map was increased
at 3 T by a factor of at least 1.5.ConclusionsVulnerability
to RF inhomogeneity increases dramatically with the
increasing static magnetic field strength. However, using
advanced corrections for the sensitivity profile of the MR
coils, it is possible to preserve quantitative accuracy
while benefiting from the increased CNR at the higher field
strength. Indeed, there was no significant difference in the
water content values obtained in the brain at 1.5 T and 3
T.},
cin = {INM-4},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406},
pnm = {573 - Neuroimaging (POF3-573)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-573},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000347101900037},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.017},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/189738},
}