4.5 Article

Realistic Simulation of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Studies Modeling Anatomical Variability, Trabeculae, and Papillary Muscles

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 280-288

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22621

Keywords

simulation; MRI; heart; XCAT; modeling; trabeculae; papillary muscles

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Innovation and Science [CEN-20091044, TIN2009-14536-C02-01]
  2. European Commission [FP7-ICT-2007-224495, FP7-2007-IST-223920]
  3. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Simulated magnetic resonance imaging brain studies have been generated for over a decade. Despite their useful potential, simulated cardiac studies are only emerging. This article focuses on the realistic simulation of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging datasets. The methodology is based on the XCAT phantom, which is modified to increase realism of the simulated images. Modifications include the modeling of trabeculae and papillary muscles based on clinical measurements and published data. To develop and evaluate our approach, the clinical database included 40 patients for anatomical measurements, 10 patients for papillary muscle modeling, and 10 patients for local gray value statistics. The virtual database consisted of 40 digital voxel phantoms. Histograms from different tissues were obtained from the real datasets and compared with histograms of the simulated datasets with the Chi-square dissimilarity metric (chi(2)) and Kullback-Leibler divergence. For the original phantom, chi(2) values averaged 0.65 +/- 0.06 and Kullboek-Leibler values averaged 0.69 +/- 0.38. For the modified phantom, chi(2) values averaged 0.34 +/- 0.12 and Kullboek-Leibler values averaged 0.32 +/- 0.15. The proposed approach demonstrated a noticeable improvement of the local appearance of the simulated images with respect to the ones obtained originally. Magn Reson Med 65: 280-288, 2011. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available