Vendor-agnostic 3D multiparametric relaxometry improves cross-platform reproducibility
Corresponding Author
Shohei Fujita
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
Department of Radiology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Correspondence
Shohei Fujita, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Building 75, 13th Street Charlestown, MA 02129, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorBorjan Gagoski
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Fetal-Neonatal Neuroimaging and Developmental Science Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJon-Fredrik Nielsen
Functional MRI Laboratory, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMaxim Zaitsev
Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorYohan Jun
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJaejin Cho
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea
Search for more papers by this authorXingwang Yong
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering and Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorQuentin Uhl
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorPengcheng Xu
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorImam Ahmed Shaik
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorQiang Liu
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorQingping Chen
Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorOnur Afacan
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Computational Radiology Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJohn E. Kirsch
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorYogesh Rathi
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBerkin Bilgic
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Harvard/MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Shohei Fujita
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
Department of Radiology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Correspondence
Shohei Fujita, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Building 75, 13th Street Charlestown, MA 02129, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorBorjan Gagoski
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Fetal-Neonatal Neuroimaging and Developmental Science Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJon-Fredrik Nielsen
Functional MRI Laboratory, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMaxim Zaitsev
Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorYohan Jun
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJaejin Cho
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea
Search for more papers by this authorXingwang Yong
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering and Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorQuentin Uhl
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorPengcheng Xu
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorImam Ahmed Shaik
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorQiang Liu
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorQingping Chen
Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorOnur Afacan
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Computational Radiology Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJohn E. Kirsch
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorYogesh Rathi
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBerkin Bilgic
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Harvard/MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Purpose
To address the unmet need for a cross-platform, multiparametric relaxometry technique to facilitate data harmonization across different sites.
Methods
A simultaneous T1 and T2 mapping technique, 3D quantification using an interleaved Look–Locker acquisition sequence with a T2 preparation pulse (3D-QALAS), was implemented using the open-source vendor-agnostic Pulseq platform. The technique was tested on four 3 T scanners from two vendors across two sites, evaluating cross-scanner, cross-software version, cross-site, and cross-vendor variability. The cross-vendor reproducibility was assessed using both the vendor-native and Pulseq-based implementations. A National Institute of Standards and Technology/International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine system phantom and three human subjects were evaluated. The acquired T1 and T2 maps from the different 3D-QALAS runs were compared using linear regression, Bland–Altman plots, coefficient of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results
Pulseq-QALAS demonstrated high linearity (R2 = 0.994 for T1, R2 = 0.999 for T2) and correlation (ICC = 0.99 [0.98–0.99]) against temperature-corrected NMR reference values in the system phantom. Compared to vendor-native sequences, the Pulseq implementation showed significantly higher reproducibility in phantom T2 values (CV, 2.3% vs. 17%; p < 0.001), and improved T1 reproducibility (CV, 3.4% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.71, not significant). The Pulseq implementation reduced cross-vendor variability to a level comparable to cross-scanner (within-vendor) variability. In vivo, Pulseq-QALAS exhibited reduced cross-vendor variability, particularly for T2 values in gray matter with a twofold reduction in variability (CV, 2.3 vs. 5.9%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion
An identical implementation across different scanners and vendors, combined with consistent reconstruction and fitting pipelines, can improve relaxometry measurement reproducibility across platforms.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
Eugene Milshteyn is currently employed at GE HealthCare.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The source codes for the reconstruction and parameter fitting alongside raw data can be found here: https://github.com/shoheifujitaSF/Pulseq-qalas. The pulse sequence is available from the corresponding author on request, subject to restrictions because of pre-existing intellectual property.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| mrm30566-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxWord 2007 document , 3.7 MB |
Data S1. Supporting Information. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Volkow ND, Koob GF, Croyle RT, et al. The conception of the ABCD study: from substance use to a broad NIH collaboration. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018; 32: 4-7.
- 2 National Institute on Drug Abuse. The HEALthy brain and child development study. National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2021. https://nida.nih.gov/research/nida-research-programs-activities/healthy-brain-child-development-study
- 3 Child Mind Institute. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Healthy and Diseased Brain Networks. Frontiers SA Media; 2015.
- 4Van Horn JD, Toga AW. Multisite neuroimaging trials. Curr Opin Neurol. 2009; 22: 370-378.
- 5Gracien R-M, Maiworm M, Brüche N, et al. How stable is quantitative MRI? – assessment of intra- and inter-scanner-model reproducibility using identical acquisition sequences and data analysis programs. Neuroimage. 2020; 207:116364.
- 6Lee H, Nakamura K, Narayanan S, Brown RA, Arnold DL, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Estimating and accounting for the effect of MRI scanner changes on longitudinal whole-brain volume change measurements. Neuroimage. 2019; 184: 555-565.
- 7Stikov N, Trzasko JD, Bernstein MA. Reproducibility and the future of MRI research. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 82: 1981-1983.
- 8Karakuzu A, Biswas L, Cohen-Adad J, Stikov N. Vendor-neutral sequences and fully transparent workflows improve inter-vendor reproducibility of quantitative MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 88: 1212-1228.
- 9Vogt N. Reproducibility in MRI. Nat Methods. 2023; 20: 34.
- 10Tofts P. Quantitative MRI of the Brain: Measuring Changes Caused by Disease. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
- 11Seiberlich N, Gulani V, Campbell-Washburn A, et al. Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Academic Press; 2020.
- 12Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N, et al. Magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Nature. 2013; 495: 187-192.
- 13Wang F, Dong Z, Reese TG, Rosen B, Wald LL, Setsompop K. 3D Echo planar time-resolved imaging (3D-EPTI) for ultrafast multi-parametric quantitative MRI. Neuroimage. 2022; 250:118963.
- 14Zhang J, Nguyen TD, Solomon E, et al. mcLARO: multi-contrast learned acquisition and reconstruction optimization for simultaneous quantitative multi-parametric mapping. Magn Reson Med. 2024; 91: 344-356.
- 15Cao T, Ma S, Wang N, et al. Three-dimensional simultaneous brain mapping of T1, T2, and magnetic susceptibility with MR multitasking. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 87: 1375-1389.
- 16Christodoulou AG, Shaw JL, Nguyen C, et al. Magnetic resonance multitasking for motion-resolved quantitative cardiovascular imaging. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018; 2: 215-226.
- 17Kvernby S, Warntjes M, Carlhäll C-J, Engvall J, Ebbers T. 3D-quantification using an interleaved look-locker acquisition sequence with T2-prep pulse (3D-QALAS). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014; 16:O82. doi:10.1186/1532-429X-16-S1-O82
- 18Fujita S, Hagiwara A, Hori M, et al. Three-dimensional high-resolution simultaneous quantitative mapping of the whole brain with 3D-QALAS: an accuracy and repeatability study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 63: 235-243.
- 19Körzdörfer G, Kirsch R, Liu K, et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of MR fingerprinting relaxometry in the human brain. Radiology. 2019; 292: 429-437.
- 20Fujita S, Cencini M, Buonincontri G, et al. Simultaneous relaxometry and morphometry of human brain structures with 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting: a multicenter, multiplatform, multifield-strength study. Cereb Cortex. 2022; 33: 729-739. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac096
- 21Buonincontri G, Kurzawski JW, Kaggie JD, et al. Three dimensional MRF obtains highly repeatable and reproducible multi-parametric estimations in the healthy human brain at 1.5T and 3T. Neuroimage. 2021; 226:117573.
- 22Buonincontri G, Biagi L, Retico A, et al. Multi-site repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting of the healthy brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Neuroimage. 2019; 195: 362-372 Preprint at. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.047
- 23Fujita S, Gagoski B, Hwang KP, et al. Cross-vendor multiparametric mapping of the human brain using 3D-QALAS: a multicenter and multivendor study. Magn Reson Med. 2024; 91: 1863-1875. doi:10.1002/mrm.29939
- 24Jochimsen TH, Mengershausen V. ODIN – object-oriented development Interface for NMR. J Magn Reson. 2024; 170: 67-78. doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2004.05.021
- 25Magland JF, Li C, Langham MC, Wehrli FW. Pulse sequence programming in a dynamic visual environment: SequenceTree. Magn Reson Med. 2016; 75: 257-265.
- 26Layton KJ, Kroboth S, Jia F, et al. Pulseq: a rapid and hardware-independent pulse sequence prototyping framework. Magn Reson Med. 2017; 77: 1544-1552.
- 27Nielsen J-F, Noll DC. TOPPE: a framework for rapid prototyping of MR pulse sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2018; 79: 3128-3134.
- 28Cordes C, Konstandin S, Porter D, Günther M. Portable and platform-independent MR pulse sequence programs. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 83: 1277-1290.
- 29Herz K, Mueller S, Perlman O, et al. Pulseq-CEST: towards multi-site multi-vendor compatibility and reproducibility of CEST experiments using an open-source sequence standard. Magn Reson Med. 2021; 86: 1845-1858.
- 30Tong G, Gaspar AS, Qian E, et al. A framework for validating open-source pulse sequences. Magn Reson Imaging. 2022; 87: 7-18.
- 31Hennig J, Barghoorn A, Zhang S, Zaitsev M. Single shot spiral TSE with annulated segmentation. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 88: 651-662.
- 32Gaspar AS, Silva NA, Price AN, Ferreira AM, Nunes RG. Open-source myocardial T1 mapping with simultaneous multi-slice acceleration: combining an auto-calibrated blipped-bSSFP readout with VERSE-MB pulses. Magn Reson Med. 2023; 90: 539-551. doi:10.1002/mrm.29661
- 33Dang HN, Endres J, Weinmüller S, et al. MR-zero meets RARE MRI: joint optimization of refocusing flip angles and neural networks to minimize T2 -induced blurring in spin echo sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2023; 90: 1345-1362. doi:10.1002/mrm.29710
- 34Liu Q, Ning L, Shaik IA, et al. Reduced cross-scanner variability using vendor-agnostic sequences for single-shell diffusion MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2024; 92: 246-256.
- 35Keenan KE, Tasdelen B, Javed A, et al. T1 and T2 measurements across multiple 0.55T MRI systems using open-source vendor-neutral sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2025; 93: 289-300.
- 36Stupic KF, Ainslie M, Boss MA, et al. A standard system phantom for magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2021; 86: 1194-1211.
- 37Frahm J, Haase A, Matthaei D. Rapid NMR imaging of dynamic processes using the FLASH technique. Magn Reson Med. 1986; 3: 321-327. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910030217
- 38Jenista ER, Rehwald WG, Chen EL, et al. Motion and flow insensitive adiabatic T2 -preparation module for cardiac MR imaging at 3 tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2013; 70: 1360-1368.
- 39Keenan KE, Stupic KF, Russek SE, Mirowski E. MRI-visible liquid crystal thermometer. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 84: 1552-1563.
- 40Chung S, Kim D, Breton E, Axel L. Rapid B1+ mapping using a preconditioning RF pulse with TurboFLASH readout. Magn Reson Med. 2010; 64: 439-446.
- 41Sacolick LI, Wiesinger F, Hancu I, Vogel MW. B1 mapping by Bloch-Siegert shift. Magn Reson Med. 2010; 63: 1315-1322.
- 42Arani A, Borowski B, Felmlee J, et al. Design and validation of the ADNI MR protocol. Alzheimers Dement. 2024; 20: 6615-6621.
- 43Cheng JY, Hanneman K, Zhang T, et al. Comprehensive motion-compensated highly accelerated 4D flow MRI with ferumoxytol enhancement for pediatric congenital heart disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 43: 1355-1368.
- 44Buehrer M, Pruessmann KP, Boesiger P, Kozerke S. Array compression for MRI with large coil arrays. Magn Reson Med. 2007; 57: 1131-1139.
- 45Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM. Sparse MRI: the application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2007; 58: 1182-1195.
- 46Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1999; 42: 952-962.
10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199911)42:5<952::AID-MRM16>3.0.CO;2-S CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 47Cho J, Gagoski B, Kim TH, et al. Time-efficient, high-resolution 3T whole-brain relaxometry using 3D-QALAS with wave-CAIPI readouts. Magn Reson Med. 2023; 91: 630-639. doi:10.1002/mrm.29865
- 48Billot B, Greve DN, Puonti O, et al. SynthSeg: segmentation of brain MRI scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining. Med Image Anal. 2023; 86:102789.
- 49Fischl B. FreeSurfer. Neuroimage. 2012; 62: 774-781. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021
- 50Barral JK, Gudmundson E, Stikov N, Etezadi-Amoli M, Stoica P, Nishimura DG. A robust methodology for in vivo T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med. 2010; 64: 1057-1067.
- 51Zhao B, Lu W, Hitchens TK, Lam F, Ho C, Liang ZP. Accelerated MR parameter mapping with low-rank and sparsity constraints. Magn Reson Med. 2015; 74: 489-498.
- 52Fuderer M, Wichtmann B, Crameri F, et al. Color-map recommendation for MR relaxometry maps. arXiv [physics.med-ph]. 2025; 93: 490-506. doi:10.1002/mrm.30290
- 53Weingärtner S, Desmond KL, Obuchowski NA, et al. Development, validation, qualification, and dissemination of quantitative MR methods: overview and recommendations by the ISMRM quantitative MR study group. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 87: 1184-1206.
- 54Raunig DL, Mcshane LM, Pennello G. Quantitative imaging bio-markers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015; 24: 27-67. doi:10.1177/0962280214537344
- 55Bauer CM, Jara H, Killiany R. Whole brain quantitative T2 MRI across multiple scanners with dual echo FSE: applications to AD, MCI, and normal aging. Neuroimage. 2010; 52: 508-514. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.255
- 56Ropele S, Filippi M, Valsasina P, et al. Assessment and correction ofB1-induced errors in magnetization transfer ratio measurements. Magn Reson Med. 2005; 53: 134-140.
- 57Dupuis A, Chen Y, Chow K, Griswold MA, Boyacioglu R. Repeatability of 3D MR fingerprinting during scanner software upgrades. MAGMA. 2024. doi:10.1007/s10334-024-01211-5
10.1007/s10334-024-01211-5 Google Scholar
- 58Hansen MS, Sørensen TS. Gadgetron: an open source framework for medical image reconstruction. Magn Reson Med. 2013; 69: 1768-1776.
- 59Veldmann M, Ehses P, Chow K, Nielsen JF, Zaitsev M, Stöcker T. Open-source MR imaging and reconstruction workflow. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 88: 2395-2407.
- 60Chow K, Kellman P, Xue H. Prototyping Image Reconstruction and Analysis with FIRE. 2021.
- 61Boudreau M, Tardif CL, Stikov N, Sled JG, Lee W, Pike GB. B1 mapping for bias-correction in quantitative T1 imaging of the brain at 3T using standard pulse sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 46: 1673-1682.
- 62Jovicich J, Czanner S, Greve D, et al. Reliability in multi-site structural MRI studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom and human data. Neuroimage. 2006; 30: 436-443.
