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 Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Thermal and imaging effects of Feraheme in MR-guided focused ultrasound: a phantom study.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same author

Deep Learning Discriminates Seizures from Normal Brain Oscillations in the Electroencephalogram of a Rat Model of Post-traumatic Epilepsy.

eNeuro·2026
Same author

Imaging cell phone radiation in tissue mimics with hyperpolarized low-field MRI.

Science advances·2026
Same author

Enhanced Detection of Acute Ischemic Stroke With Low-Field MRI.

Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)·2026
Same author

ECLARE: efficient cross-planar learning for anisotropic resolution enhancement.

Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)·2026
Same author

Leptomeningeal enhancement in multiple sclerosis demonstrates posterior predilection and T<sub>1</sub> alterations in the adjacent cortex.

Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical·2026
Same journal

Incidental Breast Findings on Chest CT: Rates of Report and Follow-Up.

Radiology research and practice·2026
Same journal

Multicenter Study Suggests Unsupervised Learning Derived From MRI Identifies Prognostic Subgroups in Prostate Cancer Patients After Prostatectomy.

Radiology research and practice·2026
Same journal

What Drives Metal Artifacts in CBCT? A Comparative Study of Detector Types and Metallic Object Configurations.

Radiology research and practice·2026
Same journal

Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction Among Diagnostic Radiography Technologists in Kuwait: A Mixed-Methods Research Study.

Radiology research and practice·2026
Same journal

Injury Patterns and Predictors of Delays to Obtaining Computed Tomography in the North Region of Cameroon.

Radiology research and practice·2026
Same journal

Long-Term Ultrasound Surveillance of Solid and Predominantly Solid Thyroid Nodules Reveals Two Distinct Absorption Patterns.

Radiology research and practice·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 11, 2025

Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
06:33

Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement

Published on: July 29, 2013

11.5K

Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom.

Kathryn E Keenan1, Ben P Berman2, Slávka Rýger1

  • 1National Institute of Standards and Technology, Physical Measurement Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.

Radiology Research and Practice
|December 6, 2021
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) MRI phase estimation methods show variable performance. Multiecho sequences with maximum-likelihood estimation offer the most reliable results for accurate susceptibility mapping.

More Related Videos

Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Skeletal Muscle Disease
09:30

Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Skeletal Muscle Disease

Published on: December 18, 2016

19.7K
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Multiple Sclerosis at 7.0 Tesla
08:51

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Multiple Sclerosis at 7.0 Tesla

Published on: February 19, 2021

9.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 11, 2025

Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
06:33

Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement

Published on: July 29, 2013

11.5K
Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Skeletal Muscle Disease
09:30

Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Skeletal Muscle Disease

Published on: December 18, 2016

19.7K
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Multiple Sclerosis at 7.0 Tesla
08:51

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Multiple Sclerosis at 7.0 Tesla

Published on: February 19, 2021

9.3K

Area of Science:

  • Medical Imaging
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Biophysics

Background:

  • Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) utilizes MRI phase data to detect pathological changes.
  • Accurate susceptibility (Δχ) measurements depend on reliable data acquisition and phase estimation.
  • Current QSM workflows often lack standardized, high-performance automated steps.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically evaluate the performance of various automated MRI data acquisition and phase estimation methods for QSM.
  • To identify the most repeatable and accurate combinations for reliable susceptibility mapping.
  • To assess the impact of phase estimation errors on downstream QSM processing.

Main Methods:

  • A rotating-tube phantom with known susceptibility values was imaged at multiple angles.
  • Four pulse sequences (single-echo GRE, segmented EPI, multiecho) were tested.
  • Ten phase estimation algorithms (e.g., Laplacian, region-growing, maximum-likelihood) were applied.
  • Error analysis used probability mass and cumulative distribution functions to assess phase accuracy and repeatability.

Main Results:

  • Region-growing methods were most reliable for single-echo GRE (Pr=0.95) and segmented EPI (Pr=0.90).
  • Maximum-likelihood methods achieved the highest reliability for multiecho sequences (Pr=0.97).
  • Multiecho approaches generally outperformed single-echo methods in repeatability.
  • Spatially discontinuous phase unwrapping errors significantly impacted accuracy.

Conclusions:

  • Significant variability exists in off-the-shelf MRI acquisition and phase estimation techniques.
  • This variability may hinder widespread clinical adoption of QSM.
  • Optimized combinations, particularly multiecho with maximum-likelihood, are crucial for consistent Δχ estimation.
  • Standardizing these initial steps is essential for robust QSM clinical integration.