Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19256
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMeijs, Midas-
dc.contributor.authorChristensen, Soren-
dc.contributor.authorLansberg, Maarten G-
dc.contributor.authorAlbers, Gregory W-
dc.contributor.authorCalamante, Fernando-
dc.date2015-10-31-
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-13T00:21:17Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-13T00:21:17Z-
dc.date.issued2016-10-
dc.identifier.citationMagnetic resonance in medicine 2016; 76(4): 1282-90-
dc.identifier.urihttp://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19256-
dc.description.abstractThere is currently controversy regarding the benefits of deconvolution-based parameters in stroke imaging, with studies suggesting a similar infarct prediction using summary parameters. We investigate here the performance of deconvolution-based parameters and summary parameters for dynamic-susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI analysis, with particular emphasis on precision. Numerical simulations were used to assess the contribution of noise and arterial input function (AIF) variability to measurement precision. A realistic AIF range was defined based on in vivo data from an acute stroke clinical study. The simulated tissue curves were analyzed using two popular singular value decomposition (SVD) based algorithms, as well as using summary parameters. SVD-based deconvolution methods were found to considerably reduce the AIF-dependency, but a residual AIF bias remained on the calculated parameters. Summary parameters, in turn, show a lower sensitivity to noise. The residual AIF-dependency for deconvolution methods and the large AIF-sensitivity of summary parameters was greatly reduced when normalizing them relative to normal tissue. Consistent with recent studies suggesting high performance of summary parameters in infarct prediction, our results suggest that DSC-MRI analysis using properly normalized summary parameters may have advantages in terms of lower noise and AIF-sensitivity as compared to commonly used deconvolution methods. Magn Reson Med 76:1282-1290, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectarterial input function-
dc.subjectdeconvolution-
dc.subjectdynamic susceptibility contrast MRI-
dc.subjectperfusion MRI-
dc.subjectStroke-
dc.titleAnalysis of perfusion MRI in stroke: To deconvolve, or not to deconvolve.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleMagnetic resonance in medicine-
dc.identifier.affiliationEindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlandsen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, Northern Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationStanford Stroke Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe Florey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/mrm.26024-
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7550-3142-
dc.identifier.pubmedid26519871-
dc.type.austinEvaluation Studies-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
dc.type.austinResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.