Related Experiment Video For MRI
Updated: Feb 28, 2026
![Measuring the Spin-Lattice Relaxation Magnetic Field Dependence of Hyperpolarized [1-13C]pyruvate](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront.jove.com%2FCDNSource%2Fteasers%2F59399.jpg&w=3840&q=50)
Measuring the Spin-Lattice Relaxation Magnetic Field Dependence of Hyperpolarized [1-13C]pyruvate
Published on: September 13, 2019
Magnetic resonance spin-spin relaxation time estimation in a rat model of fatty liver disease
Sami Alghamdi1,2, Benjamin Sinclair1, Gary Cowin1
1The University of Queensland, Centre for Advanced Imaging, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Purpose:
To compare mono- and bi-exponential relaxation model equations to discriminate between normal and fatty liver disease.
Materials And Methods:
Six rats on a choline deficient amino acid modified (CDAA) diet and six on normal chow were studied. Multiple spin echo images with increasing echo times (TEs) were collected at 9.4T. Pixel-wise T2 maps were generated using mono-exponential decay function to calculate T2M , and a bi-exponential to calculate, short T2 component (T2S ), long T2 component (T2L ), and fractions of these components (ρS , ρL ), respectively. Statistical F-tests and Akaike's information criterion (AIC) were used to assess the relative performance of the two models.
Results:
F-test and AIC showed that in the CDAA group, T2 bi-exponential model described the signal of T2 weighted imaging of the liver better than the mono-exponential model. Controls were best described by the mono-exponential model. Mean values for T2M , T2L , T2S , ρS , ρL were 31.2 ± 0.7 ms, 72.8 ± 3.3 ms, 8.2 ± 0.6 ms,71.2 ± 2.1%, 30.4 ± 1.3%, respectively, in CDAA rats, compared with 18.8 ± 0.5 ms, 32.3 ± 0.7 ms, 9.2 ± 1.8 ms, 79 ± 2%, 21.0 ± 1.1% in controls.
Conclusion:
In the fatty liver of CDAA rats we have shown that T2 weighted images fit the bi-exponential model better than mono-exponential decays thus providing a better description of the data.
Level Of Evidence:
1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:468-476.

