José Miguel Algarín1,2, Teresa Guallart-Naval2,3, Ana Ferri-Caruana4, Rubén Bosch3, Francisco Juan-Lloris5, Eduardo Pallás1,2, Juan Pablo Rigla3, Pablo Martínez5, José Borreguero3, José María Benlloch1,2, Fernando Galve1,2, and Joseba Alonso1,2
1Institute for Instrumentation in Molecular Imaging (i3M), CSIC, Valencia, Spain, 2Institute for Instrumentation in Molecular Imaging (i3M), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain, 3Tesoro Imaging SL, Valencia, Spain, 4Educación Física y Deportiva, Universitàt de València, Valencia, Spain, 5Physio MRI SL, Valencia, Spain
Synopsis
Keywords: Low-Field MRI, Low-Field MRI, Sport MRI
Here we show the results of the first systematic study
performed in our low-field 72 mT MRI scanner. Calf images were acquired from 35
volunteers whose performance was measured during different physical activities
before the scan. We segmented the images to determine the cross-sectional area
and volume of the gastrocnemius muscles and correlated the results with the
muscular activity measurements of the volunteers. We found that the medial
gastrocnemius muscle volume correlates significantly with participants weight
and unilateral jump capacity.
Introduction
Low-field scanners can be light, low-cost and with
small footprint [1], [2], opening a new window of opportunities that enable
studies rarely carried out at high-field systems because of their scarce
availability. In this sense, low-field MRI scanners represent a potential
complement to high-field systems. We present
the first systematic study carried out with our low-field 72 mT “Physio MRI”
scanner. This has been previously used to demonstrate its high portability, acquiring
images indoors, outdoors and at patient’s home [3], [4]. Here we show the preliminary
results of image segmentation to show the relation between muscle volume and
the results of sport performance tests on 35 volunteers.Methods
The study
involved a total of 35 participants (mean (SD) age of 24.8 (4.3) years; weight
of 69.2 (11.2) kg and height of 1.74 (0.1) m). Performance measurements of
common explosive exercises such as counter movement and horizontal jumps were
performed uni and bi-laterally. After the tests, we acquired axial images from their calves.
We employed
the “Physio MRI” scanner (Fig.1, [3]). This operates with a Halbach
array of more than 5,000 NdFeB magnets, providing ~72 mT over a spherical
region of 200 mm in diameter with homogeneity of 3,000 ppm. The system is
equipped with a gradient stack capable of reaching strengths > 24 mT/m along
any spatial direction. Field homogeneity can be actively shimmed with the
gradients to reduce the homogeneity down to 75 ppm in a spherical volume of 100
mm in diameter. The scanner uses one of two RF solenoid coils, a small one with
15 cm diameter, 15 cm length and Q = 120 and a larger one, with 20 cm diameter,
22 cm length and Q = 67. We control the scanner with MaRCoS [4], a Red Pitaya based system (Fig. 1(g))
controlling a custom gradient driver board.
To acquire
the images, we used RARE sequences. We excite with pi/2-pulses of 35 µs and refocus with pi-pulses of 70 µs. The phase
cycling of the refocusing pulses follows a Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill
modulation. We acquired proton density weighted axial images with TR = 750 ms,
echo spacing 20 ms, echo train length 5, effective echo time 20 ms, matrix size
140x120x24, and acquisition bandwidth 35 kHz. To improve the signal-to-noise
ratio we averaged acquisitions for a total scan time of 15 minutes.
We filtered
the acquired images with a block match 4D (BM4D) filter and saved then in NiFTI
format. ITK-SNAP [5] was used for image segmentation,
and matlab to obtain the cross-section areas and volumes of the muscles.
Results
Figure 2.a shows a representative example corresponding to one of the
volunteers. The image includes the segmentation of the lateral (red) and the medial
(green) gastrocnemius muscle for one of the transversal slices of the 3D image.
Making use of this segmentation for all the slices we could obtain the slice
cross-sectional area as well as the muscle volume. Figure 2.b shows the volume
(left) and area (right) as a function of the slice for this representative
volunteer.
Figure 3 shows the cross-sectional area (a) and the volume (b) of the medial
gastrocnemius obtained from different images as a function of the weight of the
volunteer. Cross-sectional area is obtained for the slice with the larger area
of the medial gastrocnemius. To calculate the volume, we take as a reference
the slice with the larger cross-sectional area of the medial gastrocnemius,
then we measure the volume from this slice to 7.5 cm distal. We observe that
there is a correlation between the volunteer weight and the area (volume) with
a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.626 (0.657). Also, a preliminary
analysis of the results indicates a negative correlation between the volume of
the medial gastrocnemius of the left leg with the unilateral right and left
counter movement jump height (r= -0.502 and r= -0.409, respectively). The
statistical significance was set at p<0.05.Discussion/Conclusion
In this work, we studied systematically calf images acquired with our
portable, low-cost and low-field “Physio MRI” scanner. A first analysis of the
results indicates significant correlation between the weight and volume of the medial
gastrocnemius, as well as with the cross-sectional area of the muscle. Furthermore,
a preliminary analysis shows correlation between unilateral right and left counter
movement jump height and the volume of the medial gastrocnemius. Acknowledgements
We
acknowledge all anonymous volunteers for their participation. This work was
supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain (PID2019-111436RBC21),
the European Union (IDIFEDER/2021/004), Generalitat Valenciana (CIPROM/2021/003)
and Agència Valenciana de la Innovació (INNVA1/2022/4).References
[1] J. P.
Marques, F. F. J. Simonis, and A. G. Webb, “Low‐field MRI: An MR physics
perspective,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1528–1542,
Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1002/jmri.26637.
[2] M.
Sarracanie and N. Salameh, “Low-Field MRI: How Low Can We Go? A Fresh View on
an Old Debate,” Front. Phys., vol. 8, no. June, pp. 1–14, 2020, doi:
10.3389/fphy.2020.00172.
[3] T.
Guallart-Naval et al., “Portable magnetic resonance imaging of patients
indoors, outdoors and at home,” Sci. Rep., vol. 12, 2022, doi:
10.1038/s41598-022-17472-w.
[4] T.
Guallart‐Naval et al., “Benchmarking the performance of a low‐cost
magnetic resonance control system at multiple sites in the open MaRCoS
community,” NMR Biomed., no. March, pp. 1–13, 2022, doi:
10.1002/nbm.4825.
[5] P. A. Yushkevich et al., “User-guided 3D active
contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved
efficiency and reliability,” Neuroimage, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1116–1128,
2006, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015.