Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Numerical details about the analytical solutions .

a) Region in the parameter space (cosθ1, cosθ2, E1,0) in which both solutions satisfy the physical constrain 0 < E1 < 1. b) Region in the parameter space (cosθ1, cosθ2, E1,0) in which solution applies. c) Region in the parameter space (θ1/θ2, θ2, E1,0) in which solution applies. d) Family of curves parametrized by E1,0 (ranging from 0 [black] to 1 [light gray] in step of 0.1) that pose an upper limit to θ1/θ2 for to be acceptable. The red curve corresponds to E1,0 = e−1 and entirely lies in the half-plane θ1/θ2 > 0.47.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Optimal Flip Angles (FAs) for R1 mapping.

FAs and of single- and double-GRE sequences that maximize the accuracy of R1 estimate as a function of the expected TR,0R1.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Ratio between the SNR of the estimated R1 map and the SNR of the S images in an average brain parenchyma (with T1,par = 1 s) as a function of the expected T1, for θ1 = 2° and θ2 = 20°.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Axial RESUME maps of the brain.

Slices at the level of midbrain (a), basal ganglia (b) and centra semiovalia (c) of: 1) map ([0 ∼ 50] s−1); 2) R1 map ([0 ∼ 2] s−1); 3) PD map ([0 ∼ 1] arbitrary units); 4) QSM ([−300 ∼ 300] ⋅ 10−9).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Multi-planar reconstructions of the RESUME maps.

Axial (a), coronal (b) and sagittal (c) brain slices of: 1) map ([0 ∼ 50] s−1); 2) R1 map ([0 ∼ 2] s−1); 3) PD map ([0 ∼ 1] arbitrary units); 4) QSM ([−300 ∼ 300] ⋅ 10−9) maps. The axial and coronal slices are centered at the level of the cerebellar dentate nuclei (remarkably conspicuous in the and QSM maps due to their increased iron content); the sagittal slice is centered on the midline, where the deoxyhemoglobin-rich intracranial veins are particularly evident in the and QSM maps.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Reproducibility and accuracy of the RESUME maps.

From left to right: a) RESUME maps of the spatial reference (HC1); b) voxelwise average, in the pool of subjects, of the maps spatially normalized to HC1; c) qMRI reference maps of HC1 obtained following [16] (for , R1 and PD maps) and from the 8-echo GRE (for the QSM); d) voxelwise average, in the pool of subjects, of the maps spatially normalized to HC1. From top to bottom: 1) map ([0 ∼ 50] s−1); 2) R1 map ([0 ∼ 2] s−1); 3) PD map ([0 ∼ 1] arbitrary units); 4) QSM ([−300 ∼ 300] ⋅ 10−9). Please note that the averages of (b) and (d) are shown with an enhancement factor of 20.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 1.

Mean and standard deviation of the qMRI values in different brain regions, measured by RESUME or by the reference method [16] (Ref) in the healthy controls or found in the literature.

PD values are normalized to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Relaxometry values are compared with other 3D measures at 3 T.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 7.

Extended qMRI processing of the RESUME protocol.

Axial brain slices of: 1) map ([0 ∼ 50] s−1); 2) R1 map ([0 ∼ 2] s−1); 3) PD map ([0 ∼ 1] arbitrary units); 4) QSM ([−300 ∼ 300] ⋅ 10−9); 5) MAVEN vein segmentation; 6) OEF map ([0 ∼ 0.4]); 7) MTVF map ([0 ∼ 0.5]). MAVEN segmentation is Maximum-Intensity-Projected on a slab thickness of 20 mm and fused on the minimum-Intensity-Projection of the corresponding SWI slab (computed from the second echo of the dual-echo GRE), which serves as anatomical reference.

More »

Fig 7 Expand