Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom

<div>CDF <svg height="13.716pt" id="M89" style="vertical-align:-5.28236pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.43364 14.5687 13.716" width="14.5687pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M524 497C519 556 514 633 513 650H40V615C113 608 122 601 122 511V142C122 48 113 42 40 35V0H351V35C264 42 256 48 256 142V300H338C427 300 437 292 448 224H484V423H448C437 359 427 350 338 350H256V571C256 604 260 606 295 606H345C401 606 428 599 449 577C466 559 479 529 489 491L524 497Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,7.229,3.132)"><path d="M396 374C396 399 365 451 262 451C173 451 84 405 84 327C84 295 107 257 157 243V241C91 226 24 184 24 119C24 41 92 -12 189 -12C272 -12 344 31 386 91L367 118C325 76 274 50 222 50C163 50 120 84 120 138C120 191 169 218 223 218C247 218 263 217 278 216L312 260L308 267H259C200 267 167 297 167 338S202 414 250 414C297 414 326 387 336 341C338 331 341 328 349 328C361 328 396 349 396 374Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0065,0,0,-0.0065,10.824,5.233)"><path d="M220 349V455C158 436 98 425 38 417V389C85 378 92 374 92 323V104C92 43 83 38 28 32V0H302V32C225 38 220 43 220 104V291C237 330 257 343 276 343C292 343 305 336 322 322C329 316 339 313 353 318C379 328 402 356 402 392C402 426 374 454 335 454C297 454 259 411 222 349H220Z"></path></g></svg>of the absolute relative error obtained for each of the phase estimation methods studied in this work, when the error is pooled over all sequences, slices, tubes, angles, and frequency referencing ROIs. Note that some methods do not converge to probability of 1, due to the presence of errors greater than 100%.</div>

Radiology Research and Practice

fig5

Figure 5

Figure 5: Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom 