Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: To compare conventional sensitivity encoding (SENSE) to compressed sensing plus SENSE (CS) for highresolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR-MRI) of intracranial and extracranial arteries.Materials and Methods: HR-MRI was performed in 14 healthy volunteers.Three-dimensional T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) and proton density-weighted imaging (PD) were acquired using CS or SENSE under the same total acceleration factors (AFt)-5.5, 6.8, and 9.7 for T1WI and 3.2, 4.0, and 5.8 for PD-to achieve reduced scanning times in comparison with the original imaging sequence (SENSE T1WI, AFt 3.5; SENSE PD, AFt 2.0) using the 3-tesla system.Two neuroradiologists measured signalto-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and used visual scoring systems to assess image quality.Acceptable imaging was defined as a visual score ≥ 2. Repeated measures analysis of variance and Cochran's Q test were performed.Results: CS yielded better image quality and vessel delineation than SENSE in T1WI with AFt of 5.5, 6.8, and 9.7, and in PD with AFt of 5.8 (p < 0.05).CS T1WI with AFt of 5.5 and CS PD with AFt of 3.2 and 4.0 did not differ significantly from original imaging (p > 0.05).SNR and CNR in CS were higher than they were in SENSE, but lower than they were in the original images (p < 0.05).CS yielded higher proportions of acceptable imaging than SENSE (CS T1WI with AFt of 6.8 and PD with AFt of 5.8; p < 0.0167).Conclusion: CS is superior to SENSE, and may be a reliable acceleration method for vessel HR-MRI using AFt of 5.5 for T1WI, and 3.2 and 4.0 for PD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suh et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: