% 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{Schall:856106,
author = {Schall, Melissa and Zimmermann, Markus and Iordanishvili,
Elene and Gu, Yun and Shah, N. J. and Oros-Peusquens,
Ana-Maria},
title = {{A} 3{D} two-point method for whole-brain water content and
relaxation time mapping: {C}omparison with gold standard
methods},
journal = {PLOS ONE},
volume = {13},
number = {8},
issn = {1932-6203},
address = {San Francisco, California, US},
publisher = {PLOS},
reportid = {FZJ-2018-05752},
pages = {e0201013 -},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Quantitative imaging of the human brain is of great
interest in clinical research as it enables the
identification of a range of MR biomarkers useful in
diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of a wide spectrum of
diseases. Here, a 3D two-point method for water content and
relaxation time mapping is presented and compared to
established gold standard methods. The method determines
free water content, H2O, and the longitudinal relaxation
time, T1, quantitatively from a two-point fit to the signal
equation including corrections of the transmit and receive
fields. In addition, the effective transverse relaxation
time, T2*, is obtained from an exponential fit to the
multi-echo signal train and its influence on H2O values is
corrected. The phantom results obtained with the proposed
method show good agreement for H2O and T1 values with known
and spectroscopically measured values, respectively. The
method is compared in vivo to already established gold
standard quantitative methods. For H2O and T2* mapping, the
3D two-point results were compared to a measurement
conducted with a multiple-echo GRE with long TR and T1 is
compared to results from a Look-Locker method, TAPIR. In
vivo results show good overall agreement between the
methods, but some systematic deviations are present. Besides
an expected dependence of T2* on voxel size, T1 values are
systematically larger in the 3D approach than those obtained
with the gold standard method. This behaviour might be due
to imperfect spoiling, influencing each method differently.
Results for H2O differ due to differences in the saturation
of cerebrospinal fluid and partial volume effects. In
addition, ground truth values of in vivo studies are
unknown, even when comparing to in vivo gold standard
methods. A detailed region-of-interest analysis for H2O and
T1 matches well published literature values.},
cin = {INM-11 / INM-4 / JARA-BRAIN},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-11-20170113 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406 /
$I:(DE-82)080010_20140620$},
pnm = {573 - Neuroimaging (POF3-573)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-573},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:30161125},
UT = {WOS:000443388900007},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0201013},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/856106},
}