2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of echo time variation on perfusion assessment using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging at 3 tesla

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…If the peak value of the SNR of the contrast agent concentration curve (SNR C ) [49] is used as the optimisation parameter, shorter TEs appear to be preferable [48,51]. In a simulation study by Knutsson et al [29], CBF, CBV and MTT in GM and WM were calculated for different echo times using different baseline SNRs.…”
Section: Echo Timementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…If the peak value of the SNR of the contrast agent concentration curve (SNR C ) [49] is used as the optimisation parameter, shorter TEs appear to be preferable [48,51]. In a simulation study by Knutsson et al [29], CBF, CBV and MTT in GM and WM were calculated for different echo times using different baseline SNRs.…”
Section: Echo Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 that absolute CBF estimates in grey matter deviate more from the reference value at shorter TE is most likely related to how the noise-reduction properties of the implemented deconvolution algorithm were optimized [see also "Deconvolution methods"]. In the study by Thilmann et al [51], the shortest available echo time (21 ms) yielded the best SNR C result (Fig. 6).…”
Section: Echo Timementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This has the benefit of improving the accuracy of LRF CBF estimates by reducing MTT-dependent CBF errors resulting from deconvolution noise filtering (22,29). Second, more reliable perfusion estimates could be obtained by optimizing existing perfusion protocols in order to improve the measurement of tissue signals without the need to balance the conflicting constraints imposed by arterial signals (e.g., avoiding arterial saturation) (19). Additionally, spinecho sequences may also be preferable (especially at 3 T) in order to reduce susceptibility artifacts and the impact of large vasculature on CBF estimates because LRF CBF CC estimates do not require arterial signals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to the more slowly varying tissue signals, AIFs require higher sampling rates in order to prevent introducing CBF errors through signal aliasing artifacts. Finally, the concentration signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of LRFs is higher than for AIFs because tissue signals do not saturate (i.e., ⌬R 2 * signal is greater than ambient noise) and they can be averaged over larger regions without introducing PVE (18,19). Our hypothesis is that LRF CBF CC estimates are equivalent to AIF CBF CC estimates.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%