Brain Injury Lesion Imaging Using Preconditioned Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping without Skull Stripping

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Xi G,
   3. Keep RF,
   4. Hoff JT

   . Mechanisms of brain injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:53–63 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70283-0 pmid:16361023

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Greenberg SM,
   3. Vernooij MW,
   4. Cordonnier C, et al

   ; Microbleed Study Group. Cerebral microbleeds: a guide to detection and interpretation. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:165–74 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70013-4 pmid:19161908

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Akoudad S,
   3. Portegies ML,
   4. Koudstaal PJ, et al

   . Cerebral microbleeds are associated with an increased risk of stroke: the Rotterdam Study. Circulation 2015;132:509–16 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.016261 pmid:26137955

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Charidimou A,
   3. Kakar P,
   4. Fox Z, et al

   . Cerebral microbleeds and recurrent stroke risk: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack cohorts. Stroke 2013;44:995–1001 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000038 pmid:23493732

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Mehndiratta P,
   3. Manjila S,
   4. Ostergard T, et al

   . Cerebral amyloid angiopathy-associated intracerebral hemorrhage: pathology and management. Neurosurg Focus 2012;32:E7 doi:10.3171/2012.1.FOCUS11370 pmid:22463117

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Jouvent E,
   3. Puy L,
   4. Chabriat H

   . Cerebral microhemorrhages: significance, associations, diagnosis, and treatment. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2016;18:35 doi:10.1007/s11940-016-0418-1 pmid:27314427

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Mittl RL,
   3. Grossman RI,
   4. Hiehle JF, et al

   . Prevalence of MR evidence of diffuse axonal injury in patients with mild head injury and normal head CT findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1583–89 pmid:7985582

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Kidwell CS,
   3. Chalela JA,
   4. Saver JL, et al

   . Comparison of MRI and CT for detection of acute intracerebral hemorrhage. JAMA 2004;292:1823–30 doi:10.1001/jama.292.15.1823 pmid:15494579

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. de Rochefort L,
   3. Liu T,
   4. Kressler B, et al

   . Quantitative susceptibility map reconstruction from MR phase data using Bayesian regularization: validation and application to brain imaging. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:194–206 doi:10.1002/mrm.2218 pmid:19953507

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Haacke EM,
    3. Tang J,
    4. Neelavalli J, et al

    . Susceptibility mapping as a means to visualize veins and quantify oxygen saturation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:663–76 doi:10.1002/jmri.22276 pmid:20815065

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Liu T,
    3. Xu W,
    4. Spincemaille P, et al

    . Accuracy of the morphology enabled dipole inversion (MEDI) algorithm for quantitative susceptibility mapping in MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012;31:816–24 doi:10.1109/TMI.2011.2182523 pmid:22231170

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Schweser F,
    3. Sommer K,
    4. Deistung A, et al

    . Quantitative susceptibility mapping for investigating subtle susceptibility variations in the human brain. Neuroimage 2012;62:2083–100 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.067 pmid:22659482

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Neelavalli J,
    3. Cheng YC,
    4. Jiang J, et al

    . Removing background phase variations in susceptibility-weighted imaging using a fast, forward-field calculation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:937–48 doi:10.1002/jmri.21693 pmid:19306433

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Liu T,
    3. Surapaneni K,
    4. Lou M, et al

    . Cerebral microbleeds: burden assessment by using quantitative susceptibility mapping. Radiology 2012;262:269–78 doi:10.1148/radiol.11110251 pmid:22056688

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Nandigam RN,
    3. Viswanathan A,
    4. Delgado P, et al

    . MR imaging detection of cerebral microbleeds: effect of susceptibility-weighted imaging, section thickness, and field strength. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:338–43 pmid:19001544

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Soman S,
    3. Bregni JA,
    4. Bilgic B, et al

    . Susceptibility-based neuroimaging: standard methods, clinical applications, and future directions. Curr Radiol Rep 2017;5 pii: 11 doi:10.1007/s40134-017-0204-1 pmid:28695062

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Schweser F,
    3. Deistung A,
    4. Lehr BW, et al

    . Differentiation between diamagnetic and paramagnetic cerebral lesions based on magnetic susceptibility mapping. Med Phys 2010;37:5165–78 doi:10.1118/1.3481505 pmid:21089750

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Li J,
    3. Chang S,
    4. Liu T, et al

    . Reducing the object orientation dependence of susceptibility effects in gradient echo MRI through quantitative susceptibility mapping. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:1563–69 doi:10.1002/mrm.24135 pmid:22851199

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Chen W,
    3. Zhu W,
    4. Kovanlikaya I, et al

    . Intracranial calcifications and hemorrhages: characterization with quantitative susceptibility mapping. Radiology 2014;270:496–505 doi:10.1148/radiol.13122640 pmid:24126366

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Ciraci S,
    3. Gumus K,
    4. Doganay S, et al

    . Diagnosis of intracranial calcification and hemorrhage in pediatric patients: comparison of quantitative susceptibility mapping and phase images of susceptibility-weighted imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging 2017;98:707–14 doi:10.1016/j.diii.2017.05.004 pmid:28571703

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Liu T

    . Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): decoding MRI data for a tissue magnetic biomarker. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:82–101 doi:10.1002/mrm.25358 pmid:25044035

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Liu Z,
    3. Kee Y,
    4. Zhou D, et al

    . Preconditioned total field inversion (TFI) method for quantitative susceptibility mapping. Magn Reson Med 2017;78:303–15 doi:10.1002/mrm.26331 pmid:27464893

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Liu J,
    3. Liu T,
    4. de Rochefort L, et al

    . Morphology enabled dipole inversion for quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural consistency between the magnitude image and the susceptibility map. Neuroimage 2012;59:2560–68 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.082 pmid:21925276

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Rapp PE,
    3. Rosenberg BM,
    4. Keyser DO, et al

    . Patient characterization protocols for psychophysiological studies of traumatic brain injury and post-TBI psychiatric disorders. Front Neurol 2013;4:91 doi:10.3389/fneur.2013.00091 pmid:23885250

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Bernstein MA,
    3. Grgic M,
    4. Brosnan TJ, et al

    . Reconstructions of phase contrast, phased array multicoil data. Magn Reson Med 1994;32:330–34 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910320308 pmid:7984065

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Liu Z,
    3. Wen Y,
    4. Spincemaille P, et al

    . Optimization of preconditioned total field inversion for whole head QSM and cardiac QSM. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Honolulu, Hawaii. April 22–27, 2017
27. 27.↵
    2. Vernooij MW,
    3. Ikram MA,
    4. Wielopolski PA, et al

    . Cerebral microbleeds: accelerated 3D T2*-weighted GRE MR imaging versus conventional 2D T2*-weighted GRE MR imaging for detection. Radiology 2008;248:272–77 doi:10.1148/radiol.2481071158 pmid:18490493

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Soman S,
    3. Holdsworth SJ,
    4. Barnes PD, et al

    . Improved T2* imaging without increase in scan time: SWI processing of 2D gradient echo. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2092–97 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3595 pmid:23744690

    Abstract/FREE Full Text