Normal Values of Magnetic Relaxation Parameters of Spine Components with the Synthetic MRI Sequence

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Warntjes JB,
   3. Leinhard OD,
   4. West J, et al

   . Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:320–29 doi:10.1002/mrm.21635 pmid:18666127

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Bottomley PA,
   3. Foster TH,
   4. Argersinger RE, et al

   . A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1–100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 1984;11:425–48 doi:10.1118/1.595535 pmid:6482839

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. de Bazelaire CM,
   3. Duhamel GD,
   4. Rofsky NM, et al

   . MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004;230:652–59 doi:10.1148/radiol.2303021331 pmid:14990831

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Bojorquez JZ,
   3. Bricq S,
   4. Acquitter C, et al

   . What are normal relaxation times of tissues at 3 T? Magn Reson Imaging 2017;35:69–80 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2016.08.021 pmid:27594531

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Lu H,
   3. Nagae-Poetscher LM,
   4. Golay X, et al

   . Routine clinical brain MRI sequences for use at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:13–22 doi:10.1002/jmri.20356 pmid:15971174

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Ma D,
   3. Gulani V,
   4. Seiberlich N, et al

   . Magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Nature 2013;495:187–92 doi:10.1038/nature11971 pmid:23486058

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   European Society of Radiology (ESR). Magnetic resonance fingerprinting: a promising new approach to obtain standardized imaging biomarkers from MRI. Insights Imaging 2015;6:163–65 doi:10.1007/s13244-015-0403-3 pmid:25800993

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Badve C,
   3. Yu A,
   4. Dastmalchian S, et al

   . MR fingerprinting of adult brain tumors: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:492–99 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5035 pmid:28034994

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Chen Y,
   3. Jiang Y,
   4. Pahwa S, et al

   . MR fingerprinting for rapid quantitative abdominal imaging. Radiology 2016;279:278–86 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152037 pmid:26794935

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Granberg T,
    3. Uppman M,
    4. Hashim F, et al

    . Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1023–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4665 pmid:26797137

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. West J,
    3. Warntjes JB,
    4. Lundberg P

    . Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 2012;22:998–1007 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2336-7 pmid:22113264

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Vågberg M,
    3. Lindqvist T,
    4. Ambarki K, et al

    . Automated determination of brain parenchymal fraction in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:498–504 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3262 pmid:22976234

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Tanenbaum LN,
    3. Tsiouris AJ,
    4. Johnson AN, et al

    . Synthetic MRI for clinical neuroimaging: results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) prospective, multicenter, multireader trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1103–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5227 pmid:28450439

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Blystad I,
    3. Warntjes JB,
    4. Smedby O, et al

    . Synthetic MRI of the brain in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53:1158–63 doi:10.1258/ar.2012.120195 pmid:23024181

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Deshmane A,
    3. McGivney D,
    4. Badve C

    . Accurate synthetic FLAIR images using partial volume corrected MR fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting and Exhibition of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Singapore. May 7–13, 2016
16. 16.↵
    User Manual, Version 8.0.1, SyMRI 8. Linköping: SyntheticMR AB; 2016–10-26
17. 17.↵
    2. Pfirrmann CW,
    3. Metzdorf A,
    4. Zanetti M, et al

    . Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1873–78 doi:10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011 pmid:11568697

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    IBM SPSS Statistics (for Windows) [computer program]. Version 22.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp; 2013
19. 19.↵
    2. Krauss W,
    3. Gunnarsson M,
    4. Andersson T, et al

    . Accuracy and reproducibility of a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging method for concurrent measurements of tissue relaxation times and proton density. Magn Reson Imaging 2015;33:584–91 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2015.02.013 pmid:25708264

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Shin W,
    3. Gu H,
    4. Yang Y

    . Fast high-resolution T1 mapping using inversion-recovery Look-Locker echo-planar imaging at steady state: optimization for accuracy and reliability. Magn Reson Med 2009;61:899–906 doi:10.1002/mrm.21836 pmid:19195021

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Liberman G,
    3. Louzoun Y,
    4. Ben Bashat D

    . T₁ mapping using variable flip angle SPGR data with flip angle correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;40:171–80 doi:10.1002/jmri.24373 pmid:24990618

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Smith SA,
    3. Edden RA,
    4. Farrell JA, et al

    . Measurement of T1 and T2 in the cervical spinal cord at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:213–19 doi:10.1002/mrm.21596 pmid:18581383

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Massire A,
    3. Taso M,
    4. Besson P, et al

    . High-resolution multi-parametric quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of the human cervical spinal cord at 7T. Neuroimage 2016;143:58–69 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.055 pmid:27574985

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Diaz E,
    3. Morales H

    . Spinal cord anatomy and clinical syndromes. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2016;37:360–71 doi:10.1053/j.sult.2016.05.002 pmid:27616310

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Hagiwara A,
    3. Hori M,
    4. Yokoyama K, et al

    . Utility of a multiparametric quantitative MRI model that assesses myelin and edema for evaluating plaques, periplaque white matter, and normal-appearing white matter in patients with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:237–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4977 pmid:27789453

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    2. Warntjes M,
    3. Engström M,
    4. Tisell A, et al

    . Modeling the presence of myelin and edema in the brain based on multi-parametric quantitative MRI. Front Neurol 2016;7:16 doi:10.3389/fneur.2016.00016 pmid:26925030

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Hagiwara A,
    3. Warntjes M,
    4. Hori M, et al

    . SyMRI of the brain: rapid quantification of relaxation rates and proton density, with synthetic MRI, automatic brain segmentation, and myelin measurement. Invest Radiol 2017;52:647–57 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000365 pmid:28257339

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Hwang D,
    3. Kim S,
    4. Abeydeera NA, et al

    . Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar intervertebral discs. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2016;6:744–55 doi:10.21037/qims.2016.12.09 pmid:28090450

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Chatani K,
    3. Kusaka Y,
    4. Mifune T, et al

    . Topographic differences of 1H-NMR relaxation times (T1, T2) in the normal intervertebral disc and its relationship to water content. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:2271–75 doi:10.1097/00007632-199311000-00022 pmid:8278845

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Boos N,
    3. Wallin A,
    4. Schmucker T, et al

    . Quantitative MR imaging of lumbar intervertebral disc and vertebral bodies: methodology, reproducibility, and preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:577–87 doi:10.1016/0730-725X(94)92452-X pmid:8057762

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Marinelli NL,
    3. Haughton VM,
    4. Muñoz A, et al

    . T2 relaxation times of intervertebral disc tissue correlated with water content and proteoglycan content. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:520–24 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318195dd44 pmid:19247172

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Grunert P,
    3. Hudson KD,
    4. Macielak MR, et al

    . Assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration based on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis: an in vivo study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E369–78 doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000194 pmid:24384655

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Driscoll SJ,
    3. Zhong W,
    4. Torriani M, et al

    . In-vivo T2-relaxation times of asymptomatic cervical intervertebral discs. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45:393–400 doi:10.1007/s00256-015-2307-1 pmid:26643385

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Stelzeneder D,
    3. Welsch GH,
    4. Kovács BK, et al

    . Quantitative T2 evaluation at 3.0T compared to morphological grading of the lumbar intervertebral disc: a standardized evaluation approach in patients with low back pain. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:324–30 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.093 pmid:21315527

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Wang G,
    3. El-Sharkawy AM,
    4. Edelstein WA, et al

    . Measuring T2 and T1, and imaging T2 without spin echoes. J Magn Reson 2012;214:273–80 doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2011.11.016 pmid:22197502

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Pai A,
    3. Li X,
    4. Majumdar S

    . A comparative study at 3 T of sequence dependence of T2 quantitation in the knee. Magn Reson Imaging 2008;26:1215–20 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2008.02.017 pmid:18502073

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    2. Le Ster C,
    3. Lasbleiz J,
    4. Kannengiesser S, et al

    . A fast method for the quantification of fat fraction and relaxation times: comparison of five sites of bone marrow. Magn Reson Imaging 2017;39:157–61 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2017.03.001 pmid:28263827

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Schick F,
    3. Bongers H,
    4. Jung W, et al

    . Proton relaxation times in human red bone marrow by volume selective magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Appl Magn Reson 1992;3:947–63 doi:10.1007/BF03166165

    CrossRef
39. 39.↵
    2. Baum T,
    3. Yap SP,
    4. Dieckmeyer M, et al

    . Assessment of whole spine vertebral bone marrow fat using chemical shift-encoding based water-fat MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:1018–23 doi:10.1002/jmri.24854 pmid:25639780

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Warntjes JB,
    3. Engström M,
    4. Tisell A, et al

    . Brain characterization using normalized quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One 2013;8:e70864 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070864 pmid:23940653

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Engström M,
    3. Warntjes JB,
    4. Tisell A, et al

    . Multi-parametric representation of voxel-based quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One 2014;9:e111688 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111688 pmid:25393722

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. West J,
    3. Blystad I,
    4. Engström M, et al

    . Application of quantitative MRI for brain tissue segmentation at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths. PLoS One 2013;8:e74795 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074795 pmid:24066153

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.
    2. Chen L,
    3. Bernstein M,
    4. Huston J, et al

    . Measurements of T1 relaxation times at 3.0 T: implications for clinical MRA. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 9th Scientific Meeting & Exhibition, Glasgow, Scotland. April 21–27, 2001
44. 44.
    2. Chen C,
    3. Huang M,
    4. Han Z, et al

    . Quantitative T2 magnetic resonance imaging compared to morphological grading of the early cervical intervertebral disc degeneration: an evaluation approach in asymptomatic young adults. PLoS One 2014;9:e87856 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087856 pmid:24498384

    CrossRefPubMed