Limits...
Fat-water separated myocardial T 1 mapping with IDEAL-T 1 saturation recovery gradient echo imaging

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

No MeSH data available.


Bland-Altman analysis for phantom (top) and in vivo (bottom) experiments.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4045596&req=5

Figure 1: Bland-Altman analysis for phantom (top) and in vivo (bottom) experiments.

Mentions: Simulations reveal negligible dependence on T1, T2, and off-resonance (up to 250 Hz), but dependence on B1 errors and saturation efficiency. Phantom experiments show excellent correlation with spin-echo values (R2 0.9996, p < 0.0001) with a mean underestimation of 2.4 ms (Figure 1) and a standard deviation of the difference of 7.4 ms. In vivo evaluation shows a larger underestimation, with a mean difference of -32.5 ms (Figure 1) and a standard deviation of the difference of 12.3 ms. Sample fat and water separated images are shown in Figure 2, where a thin rim of RV fat is revealed on the fat image, and a fat and water profile through the wall illustrates the large region of fat and water overlap.


Fat-water separated myocardial T 1 mapping with IDEAL-T 1 saturation recovery gradient echo imaging
Bland-Altman analysis for phantom (top) and in vivo (bottom) experiments.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4045596&req=5

Figure 1: Bland-Altman analysis for phantom (top) and in vivo (bottom) experiments.
Mentions: Simulations reveal negligible dependence on T1, T2, and off-resonance (up to 250 Hz), but dependence on B1 errors and saturation efficiency. Phantom experiments show excellent correlation with spin-echo values (R2 0.9996, p < 0.0001) with a mean underestimation of 2.4 ms (Figure 1) and a standard deviation of the difference of 7.4 ms. In vivo evaluation shows a larger underestimation, with a mean difference of -32.5 ms (Figure 1) and a standard deviation of the difference of 12.3 ms. Sample fat and water separated images are shown in Figure 2, where a thin rim of RV fat is revealed on the fat image, and a fat and water profile through the wall illustrates the large region of fat and water overlap.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

No MeSH data available.