Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can we shorten the q-space imaging to make it clinically feasible?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Q-space imaging (QSI) is a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique that enables assessment of micro-structural changes of white matter. The acquisition time, however, is comparatively long to use for routine clinical assessment. Therefore, the present study investigated the clinically feasible b value combinations to measure the water molecular displacement probability density function (PDF) in healthy subjects.

Methods

The subjects consisted of five healthy volunteers (1 female and 4 male; 40.8 ± 13.2 years). All MRIs were examined at 1.5 T. The QSI was acquired using a single-shot echo-planar imaging and Δ/δ = 142/17 ms. The magnitude of the gradients was incremented in nine steps to reach a maximal b = 10,000 s/mm2. The total acquisition time of this original QSI was 17.4 min. The feasibility of ten alternative b value combinations with the zero-filling or curve fitting technique was assessed. The mean diffusivities (MDs), kurtosis, and zero displacement probability (ZDP) were obtained, and these results were compared in manually segmented regions of interest.

Results

There were alternative b value combinations with a 7.5-min acquisition time and with almost the same PDF.

Conclusion

A few alternative b value combinations with the curve fitting technique were found to be able to shorten the QSI acquisition for its clinical feasibility of MD and ZDP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Callaghan PT, Coy A, MacGown D, Packer KJ, Zelaya FO. Diffraction-like effects in NMR diffusion studies of fluid in porous solids. Nature. 1991;351:467–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen Y, Assaf Y. High b value q-space analyzed diffusion-weighted MRS and MRI in neuronal tissues—a technical review. NMR Biomed. 2002;15:516–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Assaf Y, Ben-Bashat D, Chapman J, Peled S, Biton IE, Kafri M, et al. High b value q-space analyzed diffusion-weighted MRI: application to multiple sclerosis. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47:115–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Farrell JA, Smith SA, Gordon-Lipkin EM, Reich DS, Calabresi PA, van Zijl PC. High b value q-space diffusion-weighted MRI of the human cervical spinal cord in vivo: feasibility and application to multiple sclerosis. Magn Reson Med. 2008;59:1079–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hori M, Fukuaga I, Masutani Y, Nakanishi A, Shimoji K, Kamagata K, et al. New diffusion metrics for spondylotic myelopathy at an early clinical stage. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1797–802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Yamada K, Sakai K, Mizuno T, Akazawa K, Sugimoto N, Nakagawa M. White matter damage in CADASIL as depicted by q-space imaging. Neuroradiology. 2012;55(3):283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nossin-Manor R, Duvdevani R, Cohen Y. Effect of experimental parameters on high b-value q-space mr image of excised rat spinal cord. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54:96–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cory DG, Garroway AN. Measurement of translational displacement probabilities by NMR—an indicator of compartmentation. Magn Reson Med. 1990;14:435–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53(6):1432–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu EX, Cheung MM. MR diffusion kurtosis imaging for neural tissue characterization. NMR Biomed. 2010;23:836–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sakai K, Sakamoto R, Okada T, Sugimoto N, Togashi K. DWI based thermometry: the effects of b-values, resolutions, signal-to-noise ratio, and magnet strength. Proceedings in IEEE Engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC’12), pp 2291–3, San Diego, Aug 28–Sept 1 2012.

  12. Kingsley PB, Monaha WG. Selection of the optimum b factor for diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging assessment of ischemic stroke. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51:996–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Le Bihan D. Intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion MR imaging: a wake-up call. Radiology. 2008;249:748–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Assaf Y, Mayk A, Cohen Y. Displacement imaging of spinal cord using q-space diffusion weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2000;44:713–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ong HH, Wehrli FW. Quantifying axon diameter and intra-cellular volume fraction in excised mouse spinal cord with q-space imaging. Neuroimage. 2010;51(4):1360–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Menzel MI, Tan ET, Khare K, Sperl JI, King KF, Tao X, et al. Accelerated diffusion spectrum imaging in the human brain using compressed sensing. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66:1226–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Setsompop K, Gagoski BA, Polimeni JR, Witzel T, Wedeem VJ, Wald LL. Blipped-contolled alizsing in parallel imaging for simultaneous multislice echo planar imaging with reduced g-factor penalth. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67:1210–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Konishi Y, Kanazawa Y, Usuda T, Matsumoto Y, Hayashi H, Matsuda T, Ueno J, Harada M. Simple noise reduction for diffusion weighted images. Radiol Phys Technol. 2016;9:211–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bland M, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;307–10.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi Hirokoji Agaru, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan

    Koji Sakai, Kei Yamada, Kentaro Akazawa, Jun Tazoe, Masashi Yasuike, Hitomi Nagano, Hiroyasu Ikeno & Toshiaki Nakagawa

Authors
  1. Koji Sakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kei Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kentaro Akazawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jun Tazoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masashi Yasuike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hitomi Nagano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hiroyasu Ikeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Toshiaki Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koji Sakai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Yamada received a donated course from Siemens Japan K.K. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest except Yamada.

Appendix

Appendix

Figure 7 shows the result of the Bland-Altman plot for MD with the zero-filling and bi-exponential fitting methods. From the results of the Bland-Altman analysis of these two MD values, there was a statistical difference (P < 0.001, Student’s t test; P = 0.08, F test) between the two MDs. The results of the Bland-Altman analysis are as follows [19]: (1) there was fixed bias because the 95% confidence interval (2.67–3.04) did not include Δ = 0 [μm]; (2) there was proportional bias (t 0.05 < T). The t 0.05 was 1.99 and T was 3.12, where t 0.05 represents the percentage point of the t distribution with n-2 degrees of freedom and T represents the results of a non-correlation test by T = r × sqrt(n − 2/1 − r 2). The r was the correlation coefficient, and n was the number of samples. Therefore, these MDs are not inter-exchangeable with each other.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakai, K., Yamada, K., Akazawa, K. et al. Can we shorten the q-space imaging to make it clinically feasible?. Jpn J Radiol 35, 16–24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0593-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0593-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation