↓ Skip to main content

Improving SAR estimations in MRI using subject-specific models

Overview of attention for article published in Physics in Medicine & Biology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving SAR estimations in MRI using subject-specific models
Published in
Physics in Medicine & Biology, November 2012
DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/57/24/8153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jin Jin, Feng Liu, Ewald Weber, Stuart Crozier

Abstract

To monitor and strategically control energy deposition in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), measured as a specific absorption rate (SAR), numerical methods using generic human models have been employed to estimate worst-case values. Radiofrequency (RF) sequences are therefore often designed conservatively with large safety margins, potentially hindering the full potential of high-field systems. To more accurately predict the patient SAR values, we propose the use of image registration techniques, in conjunction with high-resolution image and tissue libraries, to create patient-specific voxel models. To test this, a matching model from the archives was first selected. Its tissue information was then warped to the patient's coordinates by registering the high-resolution library image to the pilot scan of the patient. Results from studying the models' 1 g SAR distribution suggest that the developed patient model can predict regions of elevated SAR within the patient with remarkable accuracy. Additionally, this work also proposes a voxel analytical metric that can assist in the construction of a patient library and the selection of the matching model from the library for a patient. It is hoped that, by developing voxel models with high accuracy in patient-specific anatomy and positioning, the proposed method can accurately predict the safety margins for high-field human applications and, therefore maximize the safe use of RF sequence power in high-field MRI systems.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
India 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 39%
Researcher 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 22 45%
Physics and Astronomy 8 16%
Computer Science 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2013.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Physics in Medicine & Biology
#4,882
of 5,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,434
of 285,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physics in Medicine & Biology
#60
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,902 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.