Effect of Field Strength on MR Images: Comparison of the Same Subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T

Abstract

To assess the effect of field strength on magnetic resonance (MR) images, the same healthy subject was imaged at three field strengths: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Imaging was performed with three similarly equipped MR imagers of the same generation and from the same manufacturer. The same imaging sequences were used with identical parameters and without repetition time correction for field strength. Imaging was performed in four anatomic locations: the brain, lumbar spine, knee, and abdomen. Quantitative image analysis involved calculation of signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and relative contrast; qualitative image analysis was performed by four readers blinded to field strength. The results of all of the examinations were considered to be of diagnostic value. In general, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were lowest at 0.5 T and highest at 1.5 T; relative contrast was not related to field strength. At qualitative analysis, images obtained at 1.0 and 1.5 T were superior to images obtained at 0.5 T; qualitative differences were less important in locations where there is motion or high magnetic susceptibility differences between tissues (e.g., the spine and abdomen). However, excellent image quality was obtained with all three field strengths.

High‐resolution multi‐voxel pattern analysis of category selectivity in the medial temporal lobes

“…Table 2 reports the mean number of voxels in the original masks as well as the mean number of voxels included for classification. S/N ratio reflects the ratio of the average signal intensity in each ROI over the standard deviation (SD) of the noise in the entire image (Maubon et al, 1999). BOLD responses were analyzed using a modified general linear model (Worsley and Friston, 1995) as implemented in the VoxBo software package (available at http://www.voxbo.org).…”

Prognostic Imaging Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Development and Independent Validation on the Basis of Multiregion and Quantitative Analysis of MR Images

“…Then we normalized both images by the mean intensity of the contralateral healthy-appearing cerebral white matter, which was manually selected by two neuroradiologists (K.K. and K.K.T., with 18 and 15 years of experience in neuroradiology, respectively), thereby compensating the effect of magnetic field strength on image contrast (20). The diameter of the selected region of interest ranged Table 1 Summary of Study Population …”

Comparison study of intraarticular and intravenous gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage in a canine model

“…2). The mean signal intensity (SI) of articular cartilage and synovial fluid was measured on grayscale images (first IR-FSE image of the T1 series) to calculate the CNR, and the standard deviation of the background noise was measured to calculate the SNR (1,26,33,34). SNR and CNR were calculated using Sc/SD and (Sc-Sf)/SD, where Sc is the mean SI of cartilage, SD is the standard deviation of the background noise, and Sf is the mean SI of synovial fluid (1,33).…”