1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Routine testing of magnetic field homogeneity on clinical MRI systems
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2359229
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/11/10.1118/1.2359229
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/11/10.1118/1.2359229

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Photograph (a) and MR images of spherical homogeneity phantom for MFH measurement method acquired in MRI scanner in axial (b), sagittal (c), and coronal (d) orientations. Position shift is calculated by subtracting by the distances between the corresponding points across isocenter (arrows) in two different BW images from various DSV.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The diagram of the custom-designed program. First, image from MR scan was converted to BMP format, pixel value threshold was set as the cutoff value (from 0 to 255) and image view (the orientations of the images) was chosen by the user, Then, a new image with inverse color drawn by the software was shown. Artifacts and the pixels below the threshold value from the image were removed. If the user decides all the landmarks are visible, the coordinate of each landmark signed with a corresponding number was identified and the pixel distance was calculated. If not, the loop will go back to the point of setting the pixel value threshold until all the landmarks are visible. Finally, measured pixel distances and actual distance according to its matrix size were output into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The MFH was determined in a Philips MRI scanner using the method (diamonds) with a gradient-echo sequence compared with the data that manufacturer provided at the time that the system was reinstalled. The manufacturer determined MFH by measuring the frequency differences of the 144 locations at a DSV (circle). MFH values at 10, 20, 30, and were then calculated (squares). Error bars represent standard error of the mean (SEM).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The linewidth (triangles), (circle), and (squares) data were compared by using the MFH spherical phantom in a Siemens scanner. MFH (ppm) by linewidth method for from DSV, DSV, DSV– DSV, and using method from DSV, DSV– DSV compared to the method from DSV, DSV, DSV, DSV, DSV– DSV. Error bars represent .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

MFH measurements from a Siemens MRI system obtained using the method and performed with the shim intentionally misadjusted with 100, 50, and off from central transmitter frequency using the -, -, and -gradient offsets. The six DSVs are at DSV, DSV, DSV, DSV, , and DSV. Error bars represent .

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Phase shift (ppm) due to material susceptibility effect measured from phase shift map produced by a MRI system.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Scanning parameters used for the MFH measurements on various makes and models of MRI systems. FOV on all scans was .

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

MFH measurements by resonance frequency mapping, FWHM, , and method in different sites with different magnetic strength and manufacturers’ models.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/11/10.1118/1.2359229
2006-10-23
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Routine testing of magnetic field homogeneity on clinical MRI systems
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/11/10.1118/1.2359229
10.1118/1.2359229
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM