Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Input parameter sensitivity analysis and comparison of quantification models for continuous arterial spin labeling.

Theodore R Steger1, R Allen White, Edward F Jackson

  • 1Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
|March 31, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Academic program recommendations for graduate degrees in medical physics: AAPM Report No. 365 (Revision of Report No. 197).

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2022
Same author

Findings of the AAPM Ad Hoc committee on magnetic resonance imaging in radiation therapy: Unmet needs, opportunities, and recommendations.

Medical physics·2021
Same author

Multi-site, multi-platform comparison of MRI T1 measurement using the system phantom.

PloS one·2021
Same author

A standard system phantom for magnetic resonance imaging.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2021
Same author

Linearity and Bias of Proton Density Fat Fraction as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker: A Multicenter, Multiplatform, Multivendor Phantom Study.

Radiology·2021
Same author

Validated imaging biomarkers as decision-making tools in clinical trials and routine practice: current status and recommendations from the EIBALL* subcommittee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR).

Insights into imaging·2019
Same journal

Cartesian MPnRAGE for Efficient Simultaneous Multi-Contrast and Quantitative Relaxometry Imaging.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
Same journal

Deep Learning-Based Dynamic Segmentation of the Left Atrium in 4D Flow MRI.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
Same journal

Feasibility and SNR Performance of Hyperpolarized <sup>129</sup>Xe Gas Exchange Imaging Using a Balanced SSFP Sequence.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
Same journal

Multi-Contrast Human Brain CEST MRI at 11.7 T: First In Vivo Demonstration.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
Same journal

Suppression of Oscillation and Ghosting in RF-Spoiled Gradient-Echo-Based Dynamic Imaging.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
Same journal

A Simple, Dynamic Geometric Phantom for MRI and CT Reconstruction Pipelines: Beyond Shepp-Logan.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
See all related articles

Continuous arterial spin labeling (CASL) for measuring regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) has significant variability. Careful interpretation of rCBF values is crucial due to quantification model and parameter sensitivity.

Area of Science:

  • Neuroimaging
  • Medical Physics
  • Physiology

Background:

  • Regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) is a key neuroimaging biomarker.
  • Continuous arterial spin labeling (CASL) is a non-invasive MRI technique for rCBF quantification.
  • Sources of variability in CASL rCBF measurements are not fully understood.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of input parameters and quantification models on CASL-derived rCBF variability.
  • To assess the sensitivity of rCBF to key physiological and acquisition parameters.

Main Methods:

  • Computer simulations using bootstrap techniques on actual CASL data.
  • Evaluation of nine different CASL quantification models.
  • Analysis of coefficients of variation for single voxels and regions of interest.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Coefficients of variation for gray matter were 6.7% (single voxel) and 4.5% (region of interest).
  • Coefficients of variation for white matter were 29% (single voxel) and 23% (region of interest).
  • Differences in gray matter rCBF values reached up to 42% across nine quantification models.

Conclusions:

  • CASL rCBF values exhibit substantial variability influenced by input parameters and quantification models.
  • Accurate quantification of inversion efficiency, relaxation times, and transit times is critical.
  • Interpreting absolute rCBF values in CASL studies requires caution due to potential variations.