What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate and compare the accuracy, repeatability, and pixel-wise precision of MOLLI, SASHA, and SMART1Map T1 mapping methods across various heart rates in a phantom model.

January 1, 2014Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceOpen Access

Comparing the accuracy and precision of SMART1Map, SASHA and MOLLI

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Other. Population: Phantom study for myocardial T1 mapping (n=22). Intervention: SMART1Map, SASHA, and MOLLI vs. Reference T1s from conventional single-point IR-spin echo. Primary outcome: Accuracy, repeatability, and pixel-wise variability of measured T1 values.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

SMART1Map provided the best combination of true T1 accuracy, high repeatability, and low variability compared to SASHA and MOLLI in a phantom study.

Population

A phantom containing 22 samples of different T1s (200-1600 ms) and T1/T2 ratios (1.1 - 20.4)

Comparison

SMART1Map and SASHA T1 mapping techniques vs MOLLI T1 mapping technique

Design

Preclinical

Authors

JSJeff A StainsbySunnybrook Health Science Centre GSGlenn S. SlavinBrigham and Women's Hospital

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Phantom data favor SMART1Map for T1 mapping; hypothesis-generating for in vivo validation before clinical consideration.

Key Points

To evaluate and compare the accuracy, repeatability, and pixel-wise precision of MOLLI, SASHA, and SMART1Map T1 mapping methods across various heart rates in a phantom model.
Imaged a phantom containing 22 samples with varying T1 (200–1600 ms) and T1/T2 ratios (1.1–20.4) on a 1.5T MRI scanner.
Performed 10 repeated scans per technique at simulated heart rates of 60 and 100 bpm using identical scan parameters.
Calculated accuracy and variability relative to reference T1 values acquired via conventional single-point inversion recovery spin-echo imaging.
SMART1Map and SASHA produced accurate estimates of true T1 overall, while MOLLI exhibited a 5% to 10% underestimation that depended on baseline T1 and heart rate.
SMART1Map maintained high repeatability across all conditions, whereas both MOLLI and SASHA showed degraded repeatability at 100 bpm.
Pixel-wise T1 variability remained low across all samples with SMART1Map, but increased at shorter T1s with MOLLI and at the 100 bpm heart rate with SASHA.

Structured PICO

Population

A phantom study evaluating 22 samples with varying T1s and T1/T2 ratios to compare the accuracy and precision of SMART1Map, SASHA, and MOLLI T1 mapping techniques.

Intervention

SMART1Map and SASHA T1 mapping techniques

Comparator

MOLLI T1 mapping technique

Outcome

Accuracy and precision (repeatability and pixel-wise variability) of T1 measurementssurrogate

In a phantom study, SMART1Map demonstrated superior accuracy, repeatability, and low variability for T1 mapping compared to MOLLI and SASHA.

Limitations

Phantom study, not performed in human subjects
SASHA accuracy degraded at longer T1s and higher heart rates

Cite This Study

Stainsby et al. (2014) studied Phantom study for myocardial T1 mapping (n=22). SMART1Map, SASHA, and MOLLI vs. Reference T1s from conventional single-point IR-spin echo was evaluated on Accuracy, repeatability, and pixel-wise variability of measured T1 values. SMART1Map provided the best combination of true T1 accuracy, high repeatability, and low variability compared to SASHA and MOLLI in a phantom study.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7722e6de5e3adfbdf6f3af https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429x-16-s1-p11

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Comparing the accuracy and precision of SMART1Map, SASHA and MOLLI

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Limitations

Cite This Study

Comparing the accuracy and precision of SMART1Map, SASHA and MOLLI

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Limitations

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider