Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of quantitative imaging parameters between two different types of stationary and mobile magnetic resonance imaging

  • Original Paper - Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Related Areas of Science and Technology
  • Published:
Journal of the Korean Physical Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare several quantitative imaging parameters for mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to stationary MRI. The acquisition conditions for MRI were as follows: the American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom was used as the essential part of MRI quality control (QC) protocols, and seven tests were quantitatively evaluated: geometric accuracy, high-contrast resolution, slice thickness accuracy, slice position accuracy, image intensity uniformity, percent signal ghosting, and low-contrast object detectability. We evaluated image quality using digital analysis methods with the new percent integral uniformity (PIU) method. The results indicate that the mobile MRI was degraded with significant differences in geometric accuracy (p = 0.021), image intensity uniformity (PIU p = 0.248, New PIU p = 0.043), and high-contrast spatial resolution of 0.9 mm (p = 0.019). In particular, image intensity uniformity was significantly different between the two different MRI system based on the new PIU (p = 0.043), but was not on the conventional PIU (p = 0.248). Our methods suggest that mobile MRI is more easily exposed to external high-frequency noise than stationary MRI. In conclusion, when reading images with mobile MRI, it is important to pay attention to geometric accuracy and high-contrast resolution, which require shielding against external high-frequency signals.

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WH Bence Coachworks, IM I & TP, Society & College of Radiographers, Jun (2010). https://search.proquest.com

  2. American of College Radiology, Phantom test guidance for the ACR MRI accreditation program (American of College Radiology, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Z. Mansour, A. Mokhtar, A. Sarhan et al., Egyptian Soc Radiol Nucl Med. 47, 1665 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. P.F. Christopher, M.K. Deirdre, A.E. Heidi et al., Med Devieces 7, 363 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.W. Lee, K.J. Ahn, S.K. Lee et al., J. Korean Rad Soc. 54, 47 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. H.M. Etman, A. Mokhtar, M.I. Abd-Elhamid et al., J. Egypt Radiol and Nucl Med 48, 153 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. C.C. Chen, Y.L. Wan et al., J. Digit imaging 17, 279 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. S. Noguchi, A. Ishiyama, IEEE Trans 33, 1904 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  9. S.E. Jung, J. Korean Med Assoc 58, 1112 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. W.T. Lim, J. Indian Sci Tech 9, 1 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. F.G. Shellock, Health effects saf (CRC Press, Florida, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.J. Cortes, M.G. Sanchez, L.G. Lope et al., J Eur Med Phys. 32, 219 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. Doris, N. Mait, Proc Estonian Acad Sci. 63, 328 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Adjeiwaah, A. Garpebring, T. Nyholm, Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 13, 21 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. M.J. Bronskill, P.L. Carson, S. Einstein et al. AAPM Report No. 20: Site Planning For Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems. New York, NY: American Institute of Physics (1986).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. B.I. Lee, Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42, 137 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Weibler, L.R. Enclosures. Properties of Metals used for RF shielding. EMC Test and Design. (1993) Dec:100.

  18. Frank G. Shellock. Ph.D, CRC press, 144 (2011).

  19. T.M. Ihalainen, N.T. Lönnroth, J.I. Peltonen et al., Acta Oncolo 50, 966 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Science, Cheongju University, Cheongju, Korea

    Hye-Lan Hong & Youl-Hun Seoung

Authors
  1. Hye-Lan Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youl-Hun Seoung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youl-Hun Seoung.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

*.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, HL., Seoung, YH. Comparison of quantitative imaging parameters between two different types of stationary and mobile magnetic resonance imaging. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 81, 1146–1156 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40042-022-00566-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40042-022-00566-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation