T1 and T2 measurements across multiple 0.55T MRI systems using open‐source vendor‐neutral sequences

Purpose To compare T1 and T2 measurements across commercial and prototype 0.55T MRI systems in both phantom and healthy participants using the same vendor‐neutral pulse sequences, reconstruction, and analysis methods. Methods Standard spin echo measurements and abbreviated protocol measurements of T...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Magnetic resonance in medicine 2025-01, Vol.93 (1), p.289-300
Main Authors: Keenan, Kathryn E., Tasdelen, Bilal, Javed, Ahsan, Ramasawmy, Rajiv, Rizzo, Rudy, Martin, Michele N., Stupic, Karl F., Seiberlich, Nicole, Campbell‐Washburn, Adrienne E., Nayak, Krishna S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
0.55T
In vivo methods and tests
Magnetic resonance imaging
multi‐site repeatability
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Prototypes
Reconstruction
Sequences
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To compare T1 and T2 measurements across commercial and prototype 0.55T MRI systems in both phantom and healthy participants using the same vendor‐neutral pulse sequences, reconstruction, and analysis methods. Methods Standard spin echo measurements and abbreviated protocol measurements of T1, B1, and T2 were made on two prototype 0.55 T systems and two commercial 0.55T systems using an ISMRM/NIST system phantom. Additionally, five healthy participants were imaged at each system using the abbreviated protocol for T1, B1, and T2 measurement. The phantom measurements were compared to NMR‐based reference measurements to determine accuracy, and both phantom and in vivo measurements were compared to assess reproducibility and differences between the prototype and commercial systems. Results Vendor‐neutral sequences were implemented across all four systems, and the code for pulse sequences and reconstruction is freely available. For participants, there was no difference in the mean T1 and T2 relaxation times between the prototype and commercial systems. In the phantom, there were no significant differences between the prototype and commercial systems for T1 and T2 measurements using the abbreviated protocol. Conclusion Quantitative T1 and T2 measurements at 0.55T in phantom and healthy participants are not statistically different across the prototype and commercial systems.
ISSN:0740-3194
1522-2594
1522-2594
DOI:10.1002/mrm.30281