Abstract
Objectives
To assess the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of T1 and T2 relaxation time measurements by three-dimensional magnetic resonance fingerprinting (3D MRF) using various dictionary resolutions.
Methods
The ISMRM/NIST phantom was scanned daily for 10 days in two 3 T MR scanners using a 3D MRF sequence reconstructed using four dictionaries with varying step sizes and one dictionary with wider ranges. Thirty-nine healthy volunteers were enrolled: 20 subjects underwent whole-brain MRF scans in both scanners and the rest in one scanner. ROI/VOI analyses were performed on phantom and brain MRF maps. Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility metrics were calculated.
Results
In the phantom study, all dictionaries showed high T1 linearity to the reference values (R2 > 0.99), repeatability (CV < 3%), and reproducibility (CV < 3%) with lower linearity (R2 > 0.98), repeatability (CV < 6%), and reproducibility (CV ≤ 4%) for T2 measurement. The volunteer study demonstrated high T1 reproducibility of within-subject CV (wCV) < 4% by all dictionaries with the same ranges, both in the brain parenchyma and CSF. Yet, reproducibility was moderate for T2 measurement (wCV < 8%). In CSF measurement, dictionaries with a smaller range showed a seemingly better reproducibility (T1, wCV 3%; T2, wCV 8%) than the much wider range dictionary (T1, wCV 5%; T2, wCV 13%). Truncated CSF relaxometry values were evident in smaller range dictionaries.
Conclusions
The accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of 3D MRF across various dictionary resolutions were high for T1 and moderate for T2 measurements. A lower-resolution dictionary with a well-defined range may be adequate, thus significantly reducing the computational load.
Key Points
• A lower-resolution dictionary with a well-defined range may be sufficient for 3D MRF reconstruction.
• CSF relaxation times might be underestimated due to truncation by the upper dictionary range.
• Dictionary with a higher upper range might be advisable, especially for CSF evaluation and elderly subjects whose perivascular spaces are more prominent.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) is a new quantitative MRI technique that enables rapid, simultaneous estimation of multiple tissue properties, such as T1 and T2 values [1]. Since its inception in 2013, various potential clinical applications of MRF have been studied, including mesial temporal lobe epilepsy [2], brain tumors [3], Parkinson’s disease [4], frontotemporal lobe degeneration [5], and brain perfusion [6].
MRF applies pseudorandomized acquisition to create temporal incoherence, so that different tissues show unique signal evolutions, as the so-called fingerprint. These fingerprints are then matched to a predefined dictionary containing sets of predicted signal evolutions [7]. The dictionary thus becomes a crucial component of MRF reconstructions. A dictionary is determined by the number of anticipated tissues and combinations of system-related parameters. In general, dictionaries include T1 and T2 values [8]. Each parameter has ranges and step sizes, determining the dictionary resolution.
Three-dimensional (3D) MRF provides higher signal-to-noise ratio efficiency and spatial resolution compared to 2D MRF [9, 10]. Combined with a parallel imaging technique, such as generalized autocalibrating partial parallel acquisition (GRAPPA), 3D MRF can provide whole-brain imaging within a feasible time [11]. Although various MRF reproducibility studies have been performed [12,13,14,15,16], the implementation of dictionaries with differing ranges and step sizes on 3D MRF accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility is not yet thoroughly investigated. This study investigated a 3D MRF reconstructed using various dictionary resolutions to evaluate measurement accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility in the phantom and human brain.
Materials and methods
This prospective study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local Ethics Committee. All volunteers provided written informed consent prior to enrollment.
MRF acquisition and reconstruction
Two 3-T MRI units (MAGNETOM Prisma; Siemens Healthineers) with a 20-channel head coil were used for the phantom study, while a 64-channel head/neck coil was used in the human study. We implemented a commonly used 3D fast imaging with steady-state precession (FISP) MRF sequence, as described by Liao et al [11]. The acquisition details are as follows: in-plane resolution, 1 mm; field of view (FOV), 240 × 240 × 192 mm3; slice thickness, 2 mm; echo time (TE), 2.7 ms; repetition time (TR), 12–13 ms (varied with a Perlin noise pattern); flip angle (FA), 5–80° (varied sinusoidally); acceleration factor, 3; time points, 450 (420 for MRF, and 30 for the auto-calibration); scan time, 5.5 min.
Four dictionaries with equal ranges but different step sizes were used for pattern matching. The highest resolution dictionary, denoted as HRD, had 300 T1 entries (2:2:100 [minimum:step:maximum], 105:5:400, 410:10:1500, 1520:20:2500, 2550:50:3500, 3600:100:4500) and 300 T2 entries (1:1:150, 152:2:250, 255:5:400, 410:10:600, 620:20:1200, 1250:50:1900, 2000:100:2500). The moderately low resolution dictionary ( LRD-1) had 105 T1 entries (10:10:100, 120:20:1000, 1040:40:2000, 2100:100:4500) and 100 T2 entries (2:2:100, 105:5:150, 160:10:300, 350:50:1000, 1100:100:1700, 1900:200:2500). The subsequent low resolution dictionary (LRD-2) had 50 T1 entries (20:20:100, 140:40:1020, 1100:100:1900, 2100:200:4500), and 50 T2 entries (5:5:100, 110:10:160, 180:20:300, 400:100:1500, 1700:200:2500). Dictionary with the lowest resolution (LRD-3) had 25 T1 entries (40:40:240, 300:100:1200, 1200:200:2000, 2500:500:4500), and 25 T2 entries (10:10:100, 120:20:200, 250:50:400, 600:200:1000, 1500:500:2500). Additionally, we also performed experiment with a much wider range dictionary and finer step size, denoted as very high-resolution dictionary (VHRD), which had 1150 entries for both T1 and T2 (1:1:100, 102:2:1000, 1010:10:7000).
The dictionary generation is based on the extended-phase-graph (EPG) model, as described by Weigel [17]. For the estimation of the quantitative mappings, 3D volumes of multiple time points were normalized and pattern-matched voxel-wise to the corresponding dictionary using the maximum inner product method. MRF reconstruction was performed using a workstation with the following specification: CPU Intel Core i7 7800x 3.50 GHz; memory, 32 GB; GPU, Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB.
Phantom study
The International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) phantom was scanned daily for 10 days in both scanners. This phantom consists of 14 spheres of each T1 and T2 array with specific values (T1, 23–1838 ms; T2, 5–646 ms). We determined to evaluate the measured values of phantom arrays number 1 to 7 (T1, 259–1838 ms; T2, 63–646 ms) as those arrays represent physiologic ranges of T1 and T2 values in the human brain. Reference T1 and T2 values of phantom arrays were obtained from the phantom manual provided by the manufacturer. We also evaluated the MRF measurement consistency in the boundary slices outside the phantom spheres. The phantom temperature before and after acquisitions was measured, and the average of the two was recorded.
Volunteer study
Between October 2019 and April 2020, 39 healthy volunteers without any known neurological disease were enrolled. Twenty volunteers underwent MRF scans in both scanners, and the remaining underwent scans in either scanner. T1-weighted images were also obtained using a 3D magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition of gradient echo (3D-MPRAGE) sequence with the following parameters: TR, 1900 ms; TE, 2.6 ms; inversion time (TI), 900 ms; FA, 9°; FOV, 230 × 230 mm; matrix size, 256 × 256; slice thickness, 0.9 mm; and parallel imaging factor, 2.
Post-imaging processing
A circular region of interest (ROI) 10 mm in diameter was drawn in the center slice of each T1 and T2 phantom array using ImageJ application (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/). As the T1 arrays are located near the apex of the phantom and T2 arrays near the midline, the axial cross-section area for T2 arrays is larger than T1 arrays. Therefore, we opted to mask the phantom area with the same size for T1 and T2 arrays. In addition, two sets of 4 circular ROIs with the same diameter were drawn, each set in the upper and lower boundary slices outside the phantom spheres. Mean relaxation times were measured using the built-in function of ImageJ.
In the volunteer study, T1-weighted images were co-registered with MRF maps. Average normalized MRF maps were then created using the Diffeomorphic Anatomical Registration Through Exponentiated Lie Algebra (DARTEL) template in SPM 12 (https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm12/). T1-weighted images were segmented using FreeSurfer 7 (https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/), and several volumes of interest (VOIs) were chosen: cerebral white and grey matter, cerebellar white and grey matter, thalamus, caudate nucleus, putamen, globus pallidus, hippocampus, and lateral ventricle. Mean T1 and T2 values of those VOIs were extracted from each T1 and T2 map in the native space using the ITK-SNAP application (http://www.itksnap.org/) [18], as represented in Fig. 1.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using commercially available software (MedCalc version 20.0; MedCalc Software Ltd.). Accuracy was assessed by linear regression and Bland-Altman (BA) relative difference plots between measured relaxation times (average from 10 days of measurements) and phantom reference values. The coefficient of variation (CV) over 10 days of scanning was calculated to evaluate repeatability. Reproducibility was determined by calculating BA plots, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and within-subject CVs between MRF maps from different scanners in phantom and healthy volunteers. Mean T1 and T2 values of brain VOIs between dictionaries were compared using ANOVA.
Results
Phantom study
Representative phantom images of T1 and T2 maps, reconstructed using each dictionary in each scanner, are shown in Fig. 2. Linearity between measured and reference values were excellent, with all dictionaries showing R2 > 0.99 and slope: 1.03 (HRD and LRD-1), 1.02 (LRD-2), 1.05 (LRD-3) for T1 arrays, and R2 > 0.98 and slope: 0.86 (HRD and LRD-1), 0.87 (LRD-2), 0.92 (LRD-3) for T2 arrays.
Representative T1 and T2 maps of the ISMRM-NIST phantom, reconstructed using the high-resolution dictionary (HRD; first column from left), moderately low-resolution dictionary (LRD-1; second column), low-resolution dictionary (LRD-2; third column) and very low-resolution dictionary (LRD-3; fourth column), scanned in two MR scanners. Window width was set at 2400 ms and window level at 1200 ms for T1 maps and at 800 ms and 400 ms for T2 maps. T1 and T2 maps of 4 dictionaries showed apparently similar results
The comparable linearity across dictionaries was supported by BA plots (Fig. 3) with a T1 array relative mean difference of −1.3% (HRD), −1.3% (LRD-1), −1.6% (LRD-2), and −0.7% (LRD-3). Meanwhile, the relative mean differences for T2 array were −16.2%, −16.2%, −16.0%, and −14.8%, for HRD, LRD-1, LRD-2, and LRD-3, respectively. Relaxation values of all measured arrays were within 10% [T1] and 24% [T2] limits of agreement.
The repeatability of MRF maps for each dictionary was similar, as represented by CVs over 10 days: T1 CV was 2.3%, 2.3%, 2.4%, and 2.1%, and T2 CV was 4.3%, 4.3%, 4.6%, and 4.1%, for HRD, LRD-1, LRD-2, and LRD-3, respectively. Mean T1 and T2 measurements of phantom arrays from two scanners over 10 days are depicted in Fig. 4. During 10 days of scanning, mean (± standard deviation [SD]) phantom temperature was 23.5 ± 1.3°C on scanner A and 24.2 ± 0.6°C on scanner B.
We compared phantom measurements between the two scanners to obtain reproducibility metrics. MRF reconstructed using each dictionary yielded the comparable ICC > 0.99 for T1 and T2 measurements. T1 CV was 2.1%, 2.1%, 2.2%, and 2.0%, and T2 CV was 3.7%, 3.8%, 3.9%, and 3.6% for HRD, LRD-1, LRD-2 and LRD-3, respectively.
Dictionary with a much wider range and finer step-sizes (VHRD) demonstrated similar accuracy and interscanner reproducibility, yet seemingly higher 10 days CV of T2 measurements (5.3%), as shown in Supplementary Table 1. The MRF repeatability and reproducibility in the boundary slices ROIs were lower than those of phantom arrays located in a more central slice, with the 10-day CV of 3.3–4.1% (T1) and 4.9–8.1% (T2) and interscanner CV of 4.3–4.9% (T1) and 8.0–10.7% (T2). These findings were described in more detail in the Supplementary Appendix.
Volunteer study
All 39 volunteers (19 men, 20 women; mean age, 26.2 ± 4.1 years) were included in the final analysis. MRF template matching for a whole-brain scan requires around 2.4 h, 32 min, 12.6 min, and 6.3 min for HRD, LRD-1, LRD-2, and LRD-3. Meanwhile, a much broader and finer dictionary, VHRD, requires almost 59 h for template matching. Aside from template matching, the whole reconstruction process for each dictionary requires additional 3.1 h for raw data loading and processing. MRF T1 and T2 maps of one representative subject reconstructed using each dictionary are shown in Fig. 5. Average normalized MRF maps from all dictionaries demonstrated consistencies in most brain parenchymas (Supplementary Figure 1). Mean T1 and T2 values of each VOI are shown in Table 1. There is no significant difference between the four dictionaries measurements in all VOIs (ANOVA, p > 0.05).
Interscanner reproducibility metrics for T1 and T2 measurements from all dictionaries were equal, as shown in Table 2. In BA analyses of brain parenchyma VOIs, relative mean differences were around 1.3%, with 11.1–11.2% limits of agreement (T1) and 0.3% with 19.4% limits of agreement (T2), as shown in Supplementary Figure 2a. ICCs were almost uniform at 0.953 (T1) and 0.954 (T2) for all dictionaries, except LRD-3 (T2, 0.953). The average within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) was comparable across four dictionaries, around 1.6% (T1), 4.6% (T2) for white matter (WM) and 3.4% (T1), 5.5% (T2) for grey matter (GM).
No notable difference was found across dictionaries for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) VOIs (Table 2). CSF T1 measurement had a relative mean difference of 1.1% with 9.7–9.8% limits of agreement, while T2 had a nearly 0% relative mean difference with 25.9–26.4% limits of agreement (Supplementary Figure 2b). ICCs were substantially lower than the brain parenchyma VOIs, but were similar across dictionaries, with 0.65 for T1 and 0.80 for T2. The average within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) was about 2.5% for T1 and 7.6–7.7% for T2.
However, we got higher variabilities in CSF VOI using a wider range dictionary, VHRD (Supplementary Table 2). VHRD T1 relative mean difference was 2.0% with 17.5% limits of agreement, compared to 1.1% with 9.8% limits of agreement for HRD, and T2 relative mean difference was 1.6% (limits of agreement, 48.8%) compared to HRD mean bias of nearly 0% (limits of agreement, 26.4%). Seemingly better reproducibility metrics of HRD than VHRD in CSF VOI were also evident in wCV and ICC analyses. HRD wCVs were 2.5% and 7.7% with ICCs of 0.650, 0.797 while VHRD wCVs were 5.0% and 13.3% with ICCs of 0.511 and 0.525 for T1 and T2 measurements, respectively. The mean T1 value of CSF was markedly higher on VHRD (4273 ms) than HRD (3727 ms), with maximum T1 values of 7000 ms and 4500 ms, for VHRD and HRD, respectively. These maximum values were ascribed to the upper range of each dictionary. Notably, HRD truncated a certain range of T1 and T2 values in CSF VOI (Supplementary Figure 3).
Discussion
This study investigated 3D MRF with four dictionary resolutions with the same ranges and evaluated three important quantitative metrics of imaging performance: accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility. The phantom study showed that MRF has high accuracy for T1 measurement and modest accuracy for T2 measurement. MRF repeatability over 10 days of scanning was good. Meanwhile, reproducibility was evaluated through phantom and volunteer studies, showing good reproducibility. High interscanner reproducibility, particularly for T1 estimation, was also demonstrated in this study. Additionally, 3D MRF with a broader range dictionary was also investigated.
The high accuracy of MRF T1 estimations with lower accuracy for T2 estimations was evident in this ISMRM/NIST phantom study, consistent with previously reported results [10, 19], regardless of dictionary resolution. The supplementary information of the 2D MRF study by Ma et al [1] described that T1 and T2 measurement accuracies were not significantly affected by dictionary resolution. Our phantom results with 3D MRF supported the previous evaluation with 2D MRF. In terms of repeatability, comparable CVs were evident for all dictionaries in T1 and T2 measurements (T1, CV < 3%; T2, CV < 5%) compared to the 3D MRF study by Ma et al, which implemented B1 correction (T1, CV < 4%; T2, CV < 7%) [10]. Compared to T1 measurements, a lower interscanner reproducibility on T2 measurements was noted with all dictionaries. Such lower T2 reproducibility has been reported in the MRF literature using 2D-SSFP MRF (T1, CV 0.2% vs. T2, CV 0.7%) [13]. In the present phantom study, there were no marked differences in accuracy, repeatability, or reproducibility between dictionaries with differing resolutions and ranges.
In the human study, all dictionaries with the same ranges obtained comparable T1 and T2 values for all brain VOIs. Nevertheless, higher variability was observed in CSF relaxation values measurement than in brain parenchyma, consistent with the prior report [13, 20]. Lower reproducibility on CSF relaxometry might be attributed to lower SNR of CSF due to the relatively high flip angle of MRF pulse [13], CSF flow effects [20], and physiological inhomogeneity [21].
In addition, significant differences in CSF relaxometry measurements were seen between dictionaries with different ranges. We considered the upper dictionary limit a major contributing factor. Four dictionaries with the same ranges potentially underestimate CSF relaxometry by truncating the upper limit at 4500 ms, as VHRD measured CSF T1 values exceeding 4500 ms in nearly half of the subjects. Previous studies using various T1 mapping techniques have reported similar CSF T1 values with VHRD measurements (> 4000 ms) [22,23,24]. Accordingly, FISP-MRF literature with lower dictionary upper ranges (3000–4500 ms) also described lower T1 values for CSF [14, 25].
More importantly, to various extents, CSF relaxometry will also affect relaxometry measurements of brain parenchyma due to the partial volume of subarachnoid CSF, perivascular spaces, and subvoxel water content. Our data showed that in most brain parenchymal VOIs, measured maximum values differed significantly, with each close to the upper range of the respective dictionary. In elderly subjects, in whom perivascular spaces are more abundant than in our relatively young study participants, this difference could also affect mean T1 and T2 values. Thus, a broader range dictionary with a higher upper limit of T1 (> 4500 ms) might be advisable, especially for elderly subjects.
The seemingly better reproducibility shown by four dictionaries with the same ranges compared to VHRD in CSF T1 value measurements may be attributable to the truncation of the dictionary’s upper limit, yielding less variability in the measured relaxation times. Our MRF reproducibility might also have been affected by B1 variation. Nonetheless, our MRF measurements for grey and white matter were comparable to values reported in the literature using spin-echo techniques [24, 25], with interscanner CVs kept under 6%. A 3D MRF study without B1 correction reported interscanner CVs under 10% for T1 and T2 in solid brain compartments [26].
Despite the improved estimation performance, the computational expense of the dictionary-based method remains a significant barrier to MRF application in clinical practice, where parameter maps should be generated quickly. The dictionary matching process for a large dictionary (e.g., HRD and VHRD) might take more than 1 h in a typical workstation with GPU. For these reasons, the number of entries should be kept under control. Nevertheless, it must be carefully defined to fully cover the physiologic range of target tissue and avoid being excessively sparse, resulting in unacceptably large biases. The lowest resolution dictionary in our study required around 6 min for the template matching process with comparable accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility.
Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, we did not perform any B1 correction measures, as this option was unavailable during subject enrollment. Nonetheless, the sequence became available later, and we conducted an additional phantom experiment with B1 correction. However, unlike prior studies [9, 10, 27], we experienced banding artifacts in the reconstructed MRF maps after B1 correction due to inaccurate B1 maps, which significantly affected the measured value. Also, the implemented 3D MRF sequence does not include any measures to correct flip angle error due to imperfect slab profile. Correspondingly, lower T1 and T2 measurement consistencies were evident in our phantom experiment using boundary slices, as described in the Supplementary Appendix.
Underestimation of T2 values was notable in all dictionaries, particularly in the two highest T2 phantom arrays. Such underestimation was consistently reported in previous studies utilizing the FISP-MRF sequence [10, 12]. As this underestimation persisted even after the B1 correction [12], other causes should be considered. Moreover, this effect is not apparent in different sequences, such as MRF based on echo-planar imaging (MRF-EPI) [28]. Kobayashi et al found that the T2 underestimation resulted from the diffusion weighting caused by the spoiler gradient used in the FISP-MRF [29]. Incorporating the diffusion effect of the spoiler gradient and ADC maps into the dictionary might be one potential solution. Furthermore, in the phantom and human study, interscanner reproducibility of T2 estimation was notably lower than T1. Such findings were consistently reported in prior MRF literature [12,13,14] and might pose a challenging task for future MRF optimization.
Second, we did not perform a scan-rescan of each subject in the same scanner. Intra-scanner repeatability thus could not be assessed. Also, as scans in different MR units were taken on slightly different days, physiological variations may have affected interscanner reproducibility as confounders. Physiological differences can affect brain morphometry even in same-day scans [30].
Last, the age range of volunteers in our study was relatively narrow and elderly participants were not included. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical value of a broader MRF dictionary range, particularly in scans of elderly individuals, in whom perivascular space and subvoxel water content are more prominent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study demonstrated that 3D MRF offered good accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility, particularly for T1 value estimation, with comparable performance across different dictionary resolutions. A dictionary with a lower resolution but a well-defined range may be adequate, resulting in significant reductions in computational load.
Abbreviations
- 2D MRF:
-
Two-dimensional magnetic resonance fingerprinting
- 3D MRF:
-
Three-dimensional magnetic resonance fingerprinting
- 3D-MPRAGE:
-
Three-dimensional magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition of gradient echo
- BA:
-
Bland-Altman
- CV:
-
Coefficient of variation
- DARTEL:
-
Diffeomorphic anatomical registration through exponentiated lie algebra
- EPI:
-
Echo-planar imaging
- FISP:
-
Fast imaging with steady-state precession
- GRAPPA:
-
Generalized autocalibrating partial parallel acquisition
- HRD:
-
High-resolution dictionary
- ICC:
-
Intraclass correlation coefficient
- LRD:
-
Low-resolution dictionary
- VHRD:
-
Very high-resolution dictionary
- wCV:
-
within-subject coefficient of variation
References
Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N et al (2013) Magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Nature 495:187–192
Liao C, Wang K, Cao X et al (2018) Detection of lesions in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy by using MR fingerprinting. Radiology 288:804–812
de Blank P, Badve C, Gold DR et al (2019) Magnetic resonance fingerprinting to characterize childhood and young adult brain tumors. Pediatr Neurosurg 54:310–318
Keil VC, Bakoeva SP, Jurcoane A et al (2020) A pilot study of magnetic resonance fingerprinting in Parkinson’s disease. NMR Biomed 33:e4389
Keil VC, Bakoeva SP, Jurcoane A et al (2019) MR fingerprinting as a diagnostic tool in patients with frontotemporal lobe degeneration: a pilot study. NMR Biomed 32:e4157
Su P, Mao D, Liu P et al (2017) Multiparametric estimation of brain hemodynamics with MR fingerprinting ASL. Magn Reson Med 78:1812–1823
European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2015) Magnetic resonance fingerprinting - a promising new approach to obtain standardized imaging biomarkers from MRI. Insights Imaging 6:163–165
Bipin Mehta B, Coppo S, Frances McGivney D et al (2019) Magnetic resonance fingerprinting: a technical review. Magn Reson Med 81:25–46
Buonincontri G, Sawiak SJ (2016) MR fingerprinting with simultaneous B1 estimation. Magn Reson Med 76:1127–1135
Ma D, Jiang Y, Chen Y et al (2018) Fast 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting for a whole-brain coverage. Magn Reson Med 79:2190–2197
Liao C, Bilgic B, Manhard MK et al (2017) 3D MR fingerprinting with accelerated stack-of-spirals and hybrid sliding-window and GRAPPA reconstruction. Neuroimage 162:13–22
Kato Y, Ichikawa K, Okudaira K et al (2020) Comprehensive evaluation of B1+-corrected FISP-based magnetic resonance fingerprinting: accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of T1 and T2 relaxation times for ISMRM/NIST system phantom and volunteers. Magn Reson Med Sci 19:168–175
Buonincontri G, Biagi L, Retico A et al (2019) Multi-site repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting of the healthy brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Neuroimage 195:362–372
Körzdörfer G, Kirsch R, Liu K et al (2019) Reproducibility and repeatability of MR fingerprinting relaxometry in the human brain. Radiology 292:429–437
Fujita S, Buonincontri G, Cencini M et al (2021) Repeatability and reproducibility of human brain morphometry using three-dimensional magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Hum Brain Mapp 42:275–285
Yang M, Ma D, Jiang Y et al (2018) Low rank approximation methods for MR fingerprinting with large scale dictionaries. Magn Reson Med 79:2392–2400
Weigel M (2015) Extended phase graphs: dephasing, RF pulses, and echoes - pure and simple. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:266–295
Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC et al (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31:1116–1128
Cao X, Ye H, Liao C, Li Q, He H, Zhong J (2019) Fast 3D brain MR fingerprinting based on multi-axis spiral projection trajectory. Magn Reson Med 82:289–301
Jiang Y, Ma D, Seiberlich N, Gulani V, Griswold MA (2015) MR fingerprinting using fast imaging with steady state precession (FISP) with spiral readout. Magn Reson Med 74:1621–1631
Spijkerman JM, Petersen ET, Hendrikse J et al (2018) T 2 mapping of cerebrospinal fluid: 3 T versus 7 T. MAGMA 31:415–424
Chen L, Bernstein M, Huston J, Fain S (2001) Measurements of T1 relaxation times at 3.0 T: implications for clinical MRA. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Glasgow, Scotland. cds.ismrm.org
Liberman G, Louzoun Y, Ben Bashat D (2014) T1 mapping using variable flip angle SPGR data with flip angle correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:171–180
Shin W, Gu H, Yang Y (2009) Fast high-resolution T1 mapping using inversion-recovery Look-Locker echo-planar imaging at steady state: optimization for accuracy and reliability. Magn Reson Med 61:899–906
Naganawa S, Nakane T, Kawai H et al (2020) Detection of IV-gadolinium leakage from the cortical veins into the CSF using MR fingerprinting. Magn Reson Med Sci 19:141–146
Buonincontri G, Kurzawski JW, Kaggie JD et al (2021) Three dimensional MRF obtains highly repeatable and reproducible multi-parametric estimations in the healthy human brain at 1.5T and 3T. Neuroimage 226:117573
Ma D, Coppo S, Chen Y et al (2017) Slice profile and B1 corrections in 2D magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Magn Reson Med 78:1781–1789
Rieger B, Akçakaya M, Pariente JC et al (2018) Time efficient whole-brain coverage with MR fingerprinting using slice-interleaved echo-planar-imaging. Sci Rep 8:1–12
Kobayashi Y, Terada Y (2019) Diffusion-weighting caused by spoiler gradients in the fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence may lead to inaccurate T2 measurements in MR fingerprinting. Magn Reson Med Sci 18:96–104
Trefler A, Sadeghi N, Thomas AG et al (2016) Impact of time-of-day on brain morphometric measures derived from T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 133:41–52
Acknowledgements
Krishna Pandu Wicaksono, MD, likes to thank the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) for providing the scholarship for his doctoral study. The authors are grateful to Dr. Congyu Liao for his kind instruction on 3D MRF.
Funding
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP18K07711, 19K17266, 21K15826, and 21K15623.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yuji Nakamoto.
Conflict of interest
One of the authors (Yuta Urushibata) is an employee of Siemens Healthcare K. K.. The remaining authors declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Methodology
• prospective
• cross-sectional study
• performed at one institution
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 7908 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wicaksono, K.P., Fushimi, Y., Nakajima, S. et al. Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of T1 and T2 relaxation times measurement by 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting with different dictionary resolutions. Eur Radiol 33, 2895–2904 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09244-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09244-x