Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jul;68(1):166-78.
doi: 10.1002/mrm.23224. Epub 2011 Dec 21.

Fast macromolecular proton fraction mapping from a single off-resonance magnetization transfer measurement

Affiliations

Fast macromolecular proton fraction mapping from a single off-resonance magnetization transfer measurement

Vasily L Yarnykh. Magn Reson Med. 2012 Jul.

Abstract

A new method was developed for fast quantitative mapping of the macromolecular proton fraction defined within the two-pool model of magnetization transfer. The method utilizes a single image with off-resonance saturation, a reference image for data normalization, and T(1), B(0), and B(1) maps with the total acquisition time ~10 min for whole-brain imaging. Macromolecular proton fraction maps are reconstructed by iterative solution of the matrix pulsed magnetization transfer equation with constrained values of other model parameters. Theoretical error model describing the variance due to noise and the bias due to deviations of constrained parameters from their actual values was formulated based on error propagation rules. The method was validated by comparison with the conventional multiparameter multipoint fit of the pulsed magnetization transfer model based on data from two healthy subjects and two multiple sclerosis patients. It was demonstrated theoretically and experimentally that accuracy of the method depends on the offset frequency and flip angle of the saturation pulse, and optimal ranges of these parameters are 4-7 kHz and 600°-900°, respectively. At optimal sampling conditions, the single-point method enables <10% relative macromolecular proton fraction errors. Comparison with the multiparameter fitting method revealed very good agreement with no significant bias and limits of agreement around ± 0.7%.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sensitivity analysis of pulsed Z-spectra in WM (a-c), GM (d-f), and an MS lesion (g-i). Source experimental data (points on plots a,d,g) were measured in ROIs corresponding to frontal WM (a) and the head of caudate nucleus (d) from images of a healthy subject and a lesion (g) from images of an MS patient. Four-parameter fit of the pulsed MT model (lines on plots a,d,g) resulted in the following parameter sets: f=14.8%, k=3.5 s−1, (R=20.1 s−1), T2B=9.7 μs, and T2F=21.0 ms for WM; f=6.5%, k=1.9 s−1, (R=27.3 s−1), T2B=9.3 μs, and T2F=27.1 ms for GM; and f=9.1%, k=1.8 s−1, (R=18.0 s−1), T2B=10.6 μs, and T2F=49.8 ms for the MS lesion. Complementary R1 for these measurements were 1.172, 0.745, and 0.763 s−1 in WM, GM, and the MS lesion, respectively. For the above model parameters, relative sensitivities to the parameters f (black), R (red), T2B (green), and T2F (blue) are plotted as functions of Δ at FAMT=600° (b,e,h) and of FAMT at Δ=4 kHz (c,f,i). Other sequence parameters used in simulations correspond to experimental ones detailed in the Materials and Methods section.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Examples of the two-pool model parameter maps and their combinations obtained from an MS patient including the primary parameters reconstructed by the four-parameter fit: f (a), k (b), T2F (d), and T2B (f); the parameter combinations R (c) and R1T2F (e); the MPF (f) maps reconstructed by the single-point method for Δ=4 kHz and FAMT=600° (g), Δ=1 kHz and FAMT=980° (i), and Δ=12 kHz and FAMT=600° (k); and the MPF difference (Δf) maps calculated by subtracting single-point maps (g,i,k) from the reference map (a) for Δ=4 kHz and FAMT=600° (h), Δ=1 kHz and FAMT=980° (j), and Δ=12 kHz and FAMT=600° (l). Arrow indicates an MS lesion. Grayscale window range corresponds to parameter ranges as follows: 0-22% for all MPF maps (a,g,i,k), −11%-+11% for all MPF difference maps (h,j,l), 0-6 s−1 for k map (b), 0-45 s−1 for R map (c), 0-50 ms for T2F map (d), 0-0.05 for R1T2F map (e), and 7.8-13.3 μs for T2B map (f). All maps are presented in linear scale with window centers corresponding to the middle of parameter ranges.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Example T2B maps obtained from an MS patient. Several anatomic structures are marked by arrows to illustrate anatomical variability of this parameter in WM. The longest T2B values (~11-12 μs) are associated with the through-plane fiber tract direction as seen for the corona radiata (CR), posterior limb of the internal capsule (PL), and the cerebral peduncle (CP), which mainly contain fibers of the corticospinal tract. The shortest T2B values (~8-9 μs) are related to compact tracts with fibers primarily parallel to the imaging plane, such as the corpus callosum (CC) and anterior commissure (AC). Slightly shorter T2B (~9-9.5 μs) are also observed in GM and an MS lesion (L).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Histograms of the two-pool model parameters in the brain averaged for control subjects (black lines) and MS patients (gray lines). a-c: Histograms of the parameters R (a), R1T2F (b), and T2B (c) constrained during single-point MPF reconstruction. d: Comparison between MPF histograms calculated from MPF maps reconstructed by the four-parameter fit (solid lines) and by the single-point method for Δ=4 kHz and FAMT=600° (dashed lines). The histograms were normalized to the total number of voxels and computed with the following bin sizes: 0.75 s−1 for R (a), 0.00075 for R1T2F (b), 0.1 μs for T2B (c), and 0.25% for MPF (d).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Analysis of errors in single-point MPF mapping based on the error model given by Eqs. [9]-[12]. a: Total absolute percentage error δff/f simulated as a function of saturation parameters Δ and FAMT for SNRref=150. The grayscale-coded levels (from darker to lighter) correspond to δf intervals of 8-8.5%, 8.5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40%, 40-80%, and >80%. b: Comparison between the experimental mean absolute percentage error per voxel (Eq. [13]) averaged across all subjects (points with error bars indicating ±SD) and the simulated total absolute percentage error for SNRref=170 approximately corresponding to that in experimental images (lines). c: Effect of SNRref on the total absolute percentage error simulated as a function of Δ at FAMT=600°. SNRref values are specified against each curve on the plot. d: Effect of noise (Eq. [11]) and bias (Eq. [12]) terms on the absolute percentage error for WM (black lines) and GM (gray lines) simulated as a function of Δ at FAMT=600°. Solid lines represent the total error for SNRref=170. The contribution of bias (long-dashed lines) was calculated by setting noise terms σi,j,k=0 (Eq. [11]). The contributions of noise for SNRref=170 (short-dashed lines) and SNRref=50 (dotted lines) were calculated by setting bias terms βi,j,k=0 (Eq. [12]). Simulations for plots (a-c) were carried out for approximate average-brain values of f=9% and R1=0.9 s−1. In plot (d), tissue parameters were: f=13.5%, R1=1.11 s−1 for WM and f=6.5%, R1=0.72 s−1 for GM. Experimental R, T2B, and R1T2F histograms (Fig. 4) averaged across all subject were used to construct the joint distribution of these parameters. For this purpose, the coefficients hi,j,k in Eq. [9] were calculated as the products of R, T2B, and R1T2F histogram frequencies across all possible combinations taken in 90% central ranges (above 5th and below 95th percentiles) followed by renormalization of the resulting joint distribution. The fixed parameters R=19.0 s−1, R1T2F=0.022, and T2B=9.7 μs determined from experimental data were used to calculate deviations ΔRi, ΔT2jF, and ΔT2kB in Eq. [12]. The pulse sequence parameters used in simulations correspond to experimental ones detailed in the Materials and Methods section.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Statistical comparison between the pooled ROI data measured from MPF maps reconstructed by the four-parameter fit (fref) and by the single-point method for Δ=4 kHz and FAMT=600° (f4 kHz/600°). The measurements for WM regions, GM regions, and MS lesions are identified by black dots, gray dots, and crosses, respectively. a: Correlation between the two measurements. The diagonal line corresponds to the line of unity. b Bland-Altman plot (the difference vs. mean of two measurements). The solid line corresponds to the mean difference, and the dashed lines represent the limits of agreement.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Representative MPF maps obtained from an MS patient and reconstructed by the single-point method for Δ=4 kHz and FAMT=600°. Each second cross-section is shown after exclusion of four superior and inferior slices from the volume totally comprising 48 reconstructed slices with 2.5 mm thickness.

References

    1. Wolf SD, Balaban RS. Magnetization transfer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 1989;10:135–144. - PubMed
    1. Dousset V, Grossman RI, Ramer KN, Schnall MD, Young LH, Gonzalez-Scarano F, Lavi E, Cohen JA. Experimental allergic encephalomyelitis and multiple sclerosis: lesion characterization with magnetization transfer imaging. Radiology. 1992;182:483–491. - PubMed
    1. Helms G, Dathe H, Kallenberg K, Dechent P. High-resolution maps of magnetization transfer with inherent correction for RF inhomogeneity and T1 relaxation obtained from 3D FLASH MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60:1396–1407. - PubMed
    1. Henkelman RM, Huang X, Xiang QS, Stanisz GJ, Swanson SD, Bronskill MJ. Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer. Magn Reson Med. 1993;29:759–766. - PubMed
    1. Morrison C, Henkelman RM. A model for magnetization transfer in tissues. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33:475–482. - PubMed

Publication types