Synopsis
A principled
framework is proposed to optimize the experiment design for magnetic resonance
fingerprinting (MRF) based on the Cramer-Rao bound. Within this framework, we optimize
the acquisition parameters (flip angle, TR, etc.) to maximize the SNR
efficiency of quantitative parameter estimation. Preliminary results indicate
that the optimized experiments allow for substantially reducing the length of
an MRF acquisition and substantially improving
estimation performance for the T2 map, while maintaining similar accuracy level
for the T1 map. The proposed framework should prove useful for fast quantitative
MR imaging with MRF. Introduction
Magnetic resonance
fingerprinting (MRF)
[1] is an emerging quantitative MRI technique that simultaneously
acquires multiple tissue MR parameters in a single experiment. Although MRF provides an ultrafast
imaging speed, its accuracy often depends on the length of data acquisition. Furthermore,
it has been observed that the accuracy of T2 can be much worse than that of T1
[2][3]. In this work, we address the above problems from an experiment design perspective.
Similar to previous experiment design approaches
[4-6], we use the
Cramer-Rao bound (CRB)
[7], a theoretical bound on the variance of any unbiased parameter estimate, as a quality measure for different experiment designs. We further utilize this bound to optimize
the parameters of the MRF acquisition (e.g., flip angle and TR) to minimize
this variance, thereby enhancing SNR efficiency. Representative results are
shown to illustrate the effectiveness of the optimized experiments.
Method
For simplicity, denote $$$\theta=[T_1,T_2,M_0,f_0]^T$$$. Based on estimation theory, the CRB
matrix $$$\mathbf{C}(\theta)$$$ for any unbiased estimator $$$\hat{\theta}$$$ can be expressed as [7]:
$$ E[(\theta -\hat{\theta})(\theta -\hat{\theta})^T] \geq \mathbf{C}(\theta)=J^{+}(\theta)
$$,
where $$$J(\theta)$$$ denotes the Fisher information matrix that can be calculated as:
$$ \mathbf{J}_{i, j} = \frac{1}{\sigma^2}\sum_{n=1}^N[\frac{\partial m^n(\theta)}{\partial \theta_i}]^T[[\frac{\partial m^n(\theta)}{\partial \theta_j}],$$
where $$$\sigma^2$$$ denote the noise variance, $$$m^n$$$ the magnetization evolution, and $$$N$$$ the length of acquisition. Given that the CRB measures the estimation variance, it can be used to evaluate the SNR efficiency of the experiment. With the CRB, the experiment design problem can be formulated as
$$\text{min}_{\alpha_n, ~TR_n} \sum_{l=1}^L\sum_{i=1}^4\omega_i\sqrt{[\mathbf{C}(\theta^{(l)})]_{i,i}}/\theta_i^{(l)} \\s.t.~~~\alpha_n^{min}\leq \alpha_n\leq \alpha_n^{max}, ~~TR_n^{min}\leq TR_n\leq TR_n^{max},~~ \sum_{n=1}^NTR_n \leq T.$$
where $$$\alpha_n^{min}$$$ and $$$\alpha_n^{max}$$$ respectively denote the upper and lower limits on the $$$n$$$th flip angle, $$$TR_n^{min}$$$ and $$$TR_n^{max}$$$ the upper and lower limits on the $$$n$$$th $$$TR$$$, $$$T$$$ the total acquisition time, and $$$w_i$$$ balances the importance of different parameters for experiment design. Here, we optimize the CRB over a set of representative tissue parameters $$$\left\{\theta^{(l)}\right\}_{l=1}^L$$$.
Note that this formulation
results in a highly nonlinear and nonconvex optimization problem, for which stochastic optimization is applied to obtain a reasonable
local minimum.
Results
First, we use the CRB to analyze the
existing MRF acquisition. We chose the representative tissue parameter
values from the grey matter and white matter of the brain, and calculated the
CRB based on the same flip angles and repetition times (TR) from [1].
Fig. 1 plots the normalized CRB versus the number of TRs (i.e., acquisition
time). As can be seen, the CRB for T2 is much larger than that of T1 for both tissues,
confirming the empirical observations in [2][3]. Furthermore, the T1 estimation accuracy rapidly
reaches the minimum within the first 200 TRs, while attaining good accuracy for T2 requires significantly longer acquisition time. This figure clearly indicates that the original MRF experiment is sub-optimal, because 1) if we only care about T1, there is no gain in estimation quality for using a longer
experiment, and 2) if we only care about T2, it is not efficient. Optimal design could be used to address both of these issues.
We performed the experiment design based on the CRB to maximize the SNR efficiency for T1
and T2. Specifically, we set the maximum and minimum flip angles as 0 and 60
degree, the maximum and minimum TRs as 8 ms and 11 ms, and the experiment
duration as $$$T = 5s$$$. To evaluate the effectiveness of the optimized experiment,
we performed MRF acquisitions using the original acquisition parameters and
optimized parameters with the same acquisition time $$$T = 5s$$$. Furthermore, we performed
the original MRF experiment with the acquisition time $$$T = 10s$$$. Fig. 2 shows the
error maps associated with the T1 and T2 reconstructions using the maximum
likelihood (ML) reconstruction approach [2]. As can be seen, compared to the original MRF
experiment with the same acquisition time (i.e., $$$T = 5s$$$), the optimized
experiment is able to achieve a similar level of accuracy for the T1
estimation, while enabling substantial improvement in the T2 estimation
accuracy. Compared to the original MRF experiment with $$$T = 10s$$$, the optimized experiment enables better T2 accuracy while simultaneously reducing experiment duration. This clearly indicates the improvement of SNR efficiency offered by the proposed method.
Conclusion
In this work, we proposed a
principled framework based on the CRB to evaluate and design MRF experiments.
The optimized MRF experiments allow for substantial improvement in the accuracy
of the T2 estimation, while maintaining similar level of accuracy for the T1
estimation. With the optimized experiment design, we could potentially gain the
SNR efficiency by a factor of two.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by research grants: NSF CCF-1350563, NIH-R01-EB017219, NIH-R01-EB017337, NIH R01-NS089212, NIH-P41-EB015896, NIH-U01-MH093765, NIH-R00-EB012107, and NIH-R24-MH106096.
References
[1] D. Ma, V. Gulani, N. Seiberlich, K. Liu, J. L. Sunshine, J. L. Duerk, and M. A. Griswold, "Magnetic resonance fingerprinting", Nature, vol. 495, pp. 187 - 192, 2013.
[2] B. Zhao, F. Lam, B. Bilgic, H. Ye, K. Setsompop, "Maximum likelihood reconstruction for magnetic resonance fingerprinting", pp. 905 - 909, IEEE Int. Symp. Biomed Imaging, 2015.
[3] E. Y. Pierre, D. Ma, Y. Chen, C. Badve, and M. A. Griswold, "Multiscale Reconstruction for MR Fingerprinting", Magn. Reson. Med., 2015, in press.
[4] F. Pukelsheim, "Optimal Design of Experiments", John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993.
[5] J. P. Haldar, Q. Gao, X. J. Zhou, and Z.-P. Liang, "Optimized measurements of anomalous diffusion", Int. Symp. Magn. Reson. Med. p. 3569, 2009.
[6] K. Li, Z. Zu, J. Xu, V. A. janve, J. C. Gore, M. D. Does, D. F. Gochberg, "Optimized Inversion Recovery Sequences for Quantitative T1 and Magnetization transfer imaging", Magn. Reson. Med., pp. 491-500, 2010.
[7] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1993, vol I.