Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A Comparison of Finite Element-Based Inversion Algorithms, Local Frequency Estimation, and Direct Inversion Approach Used in MRE.

In quantitative elastography, maps of the mechanical properties of soft tissue, or elastograms, are calculated from the measured displacement data by solving an inverse problem. The model assumptions have a significant effect on elastograms. Motivated by the high sensitivity of imaging results to the model assumptions for in vivo magnetic resonance elastography of the prostate, we compared elastograms obtained with four different methods. Two finite-element method (FEM)-based methods developed by our group were compared with two other commonly used methods, local frequency estimator (LFE) and curl-based direct inversion (c-DI). All the methods assume a linear isotropic elastic model, but the methods vary in their assumptions, such as local homogeneity or incompressibility, and in the specific approach used. We report results using simulations, phantom, and ex vivo and in vivo data. The simulation and phantom studies show, for regions with an inclusion, that the contrast to noise ratio (CNR) for the FEM methods is about three to five times higher than the CNR for the LFE and c-DI and the rms error is about half. The LFE method produces very smooth results (i.e., low CNR) and is fast. c-DI is faster than the FEM methods but it is only accurate in areas where elasticity variations are small. The artifacts resulting from the homogeneity assumption in c-DI is detrimental in regions with large variations. The ex vivo and in vivo results also show similar trends as the simulation and phantom studies. The c-FEM method is more sensitive to noise compared with the mixed-FEM due to higher orders derivatives. This is especially evident at lower frequencies, where the wave curvature is smaller and it is more prone to such error, causing a discrepancy in the absolute values between the mixed-FEM and c-FEM in our in vivo results. In general, the proposed FEMs use fewer simplifying assumptions and outperform the other methods but they are computationally more expensive.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app