Yoojin Lee1,2, Adam Kettinger3,4, Bertram Wilm2, Ralf Deichmann5, Nikolaus Weiskopf6, Christian Lambert7, Klaas Pruessmann2, and Zoltan Nagy1
1Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 2Institute for Biomedical Engineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 3Brain Imaging Centre, Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, 4Department of Nuclear Techniques, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary, 5Brain Imaging Centre, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, 6Department of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany, 7Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom
Synopsis
Diffusion MRI requires numerous corrective steps in the
data processing pipeline. One such step regards the need for voxel-wise
correction of erroneous b-values that ensue from the inherent non-linearity of
the magnetic field gradients. To estimate the non-linearity we used a simple
image-based method that involves a spherical water phantom to measure
voxel-wise the apparent diffusion constant. Deviations from the expected value
allow estimation of the local b-value. The b-value maps were validated against
the spherical harmonic predictions and subsequently used to correct phantom and
in-vivo data.
Introduction
To perform cutting edge diffusion MR imaging studies, a large number of acquisition
optimization1,2 and correction steps3-5 are applied to
the high angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI) data. In particular, the inherent non-linearity of the
magnetic field gradients will result in a spatial variability of the nominal
b-value. Correction methods have been put forth that either model the cause of
the deviations6 or rely on intimate knowledge of the gradient design7.
The aim of the present work was to validate a simple, image-based measurement
of the gradient non-linearity and the corresponding voxel-wise correction of
the erroneous b-value.Methods
The method is based on previous work8 using a spherical water
phantom to measure the spatial deviation from the expected diffusion constant on
a 3T Philips Achieva scanner. Briefly, ten HARDI data sets were acquired with
64 diffusion directions (b=500 s/mm2) and 2 reference images (b=0
s/mm2) at 1.7 mm isotropic resolution. The acquisition implemented concurrent
magnetic field monitoring9-11 to minimize artifacts from eddy
currents, Bo field inhomogeneity and EPI ghosts (Fig1). Apparent
diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were calculated for each of the 64
diffusion-weighted images (DWIs) in 9 of the 10 repetitions. Under the
assumption that at the isocentre the actual magnetic field gradients correspond
to their nominal values, the observed b-values were estimated voxel-wise as bobs
= k2bnom, with k = sqrt(ADCobs / ADCnom),
where ADCobs is the observed diffusion constant, bobs is estimated
voxel-wise b-value and ADCnom and bnom are the respective
true values at the isocentre where gradients are assumed to be correct. The
b-value maps of the first nine acquisitions were averaged for better SNR and
this average was used to calculate the corrected voxel-wise ADC in each of the
64 DWIs of the 10th data set. One healthy adult male volunteer was
also scanned once with an identical HARDI sequence but with b=1000 s/mm2.
Using FSL version 5.0.11 (FMRIB, Oxford, England), the bedpostX pipeline for fibre estimation was run using the default
parameter settings, but using the two different b-value approaches: 1) Standard
bedpostX using a nominal b-value for
every voxel. 2) Modified voxel-wise bedpostX
(implemented in MATLAB 2018a) using the unique b-value measurements for every
voxel in the brain. Results
The high-quality 3D b-value maps (averaged over the 9 runs) showed a
marked qualitative correspondence to the predicted maps, obtained via spherical
harmonic prediction expansion – albeit the measured b-value deviations were
larger (Fig2). The corrected ADC map – calculated voxel-wise from the 10th
HARDI dataset and the measured b-value map – provided the expected spatial
uniformity across the phantom (Fig3). The 1st and 2nd
columns of Fig4 shows the probabilistic tractography results from a single seed
voxel in either the posterior limb of the internal capsule (top and middle
rows) or the anterior corpus callosum (bottom row). The b-value corrected data
showed less noisy, more confined tracts. In the 3rd and 4th
columns the corresponding dispersion images indicate that the data with
corrected b-value results in lower uncertainty in the primary fibre
orientation. Discussion
In this study the 3D spatial distribution of the actual b-value was
calculated voxel-wise from high-quality HARDI data. Although the measurements
indicated larger deviations from the nominal b-value than the spherical
harmonic predictions (Fig2), the experimentally measured results were in line
with previous measurements on a different scanner8 and also presented
by independent investigators4. Furthermore, when the measured
b-value maps were used to correct additional data, the resulting ADC map became
spatially uniform as expected (Fig3).
In-vivo confirmations are notoriously difficult because the underlying
truth is not known. What we could confirm is that the two processing paths
produce different results albeit reasonable results. The more confined fibre tracts
of the b-value corrected data correspond to expectations that one would have
from the observed lower uncertainty of the main fibre tracts.
Future work will aim to investigate the discrepancy between the
spherical harmonic prediction and the measured b-value maps to confirm whether
this discrepancy is due to measurement error or the fact that the spherical
harmonic predictions do not include secondary effects, such as the influence of
the other imaging gradients, concomitant fields or eddy current effects (i.e.
the first diffusion gradient effecting the second one, etc). Moreover, it is
planned to devise additional outcome measures to ascertain that the changes in
the in-vivo results represent significant improvements.Acknowledgements
Carrying out the work was supported by the Swiss National Science
Foundation (grant# 31003A_166118 and 316030_164076). We are indebted to
colleagues within Philips Healthcare (Best, The Netherlands) for sharing the
spherical harmonic expansions of the expected gradient fields and their patient
guidance in estimating the actual expected b-values.References
1. Reese
TG, Heid O, Weisskoff RM, Wedeen VJ. Reduction of eddy-current-induced
distortion in diffusion MRI using a twice-refocused spin echo. Magn Reson Med
2003;49(1):177-182.
2. Jones
DK, Horsfield MA, Simmons A. Optimal strategies for measuring diffusion in
anisotropic systems by magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med
1999;42(3):515-525.
3. Andersson
JLR, Sotiropoulos SN. An integrated approach to correction for off-resonance
effects and subject movement in diffusion MR imaging. Neuroimage 2016;125:1063-1078.
4. Sotiropoulos
SN, Jbabdi S, Xu J, et al. Advances in diffusion MRI acquisition and processing
in the Human Connectome Project. Neuroimage 2013;80:125-143.
5. Vos
SB, Tax CM, Luijten PR, Ourselin S, Leemans A, Froeling M. The importance of
correcting for signal drift in diffusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2016;77:285-299.
6. Mohammadi
S, Nagy Z, Möller HE, Symms MR, Carmichael DW, Josephs O, Weiskopf N. The
effect of local perturbation fields on human DTI: Characterisation, measurement
and correction. Neuroimage 2012;60(1):562-570.
7. Bammer
R, Markl M, Barnett A, Acar B, Alley MT, Pelc NJ, Glover GH, Moseley ME.
Analysis and generalized correction of the effect of spatial gradient field
distortions in diffusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 2003;50(3):560-569.
8. Nagy
Z, Alexander DC, Weiskopf N. Measuring and Correcting Errors That Occur in
Diffusion Weighted Images Due to Non-Ideal Gradient Linearity. In: Proceedings
of the 17th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Honolulu, USA, Abstract #849.
9. Barmet C, De Zanche N, Pruessmann KP. Spatiotemporal magnetic field
monitoring for MR. Magn Reson Med 2008;60(1):187-197.
10. Wilm
BJ, Nagy Z, Barmet C, et al. Diffusion MRI with concurrent magnetic field
monitoring. Magn Reson Med 2015;74(4):925-933.
11. Kennedy
M, Lee Y, Nagy Z. An industrial design solution for integrating NMR magnetic
field sensors into an MRI scanner. Magn Reson Med 2018;80(2):833-839.