The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cramér–Rao bounds for three‐point decomposition of water and fat
Abstract
The noise analysis for three‐point decomposition of water and fat was extended to account for the uncertainty in the field map. This generalization leads to a nonlinear estimation problem. The Crámer–Rao bound (CRB) was used to study the variance of the estimates of the magnitude, phase, and field map by computing the maximum effective number of signals averaged (NSA) for any choice of echo time shifts. The analysis shows that the noise properties of the reconstructed magnitude, phase, and field map depend not only on the choice of echo time shifts but also on the amount of fat and water in each voxel and their alignment at the echo. The choice of echo time shifts for spin‐echo, spoiled gradient echo, and steady‐state free precession imaging techniques were optimized using the CRB. The noise analysis for the magnitude explains rough interfaces seen clinically in the boundary of fat and water with source images obtained symmetrically about the spin‐echo. It also provides a solution by choosing appropriate echo time shifts (−π/6 + π k, π/2 + π k, 7π/6 + π k), with k an integer. With this choice of echo time shifts it is possible to achieve the maximum NSA uniformly across all fat:water ratios. The optimization is also carried out for the estimation of phase and field map. These theoretical results were verified using Monte Carlo simulations with a newly developed nonlinear least‐squares reconstruction algorithm that achieves the CRB. Magn Reson Med, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fat quantification with IDEAL gradient echo imaging: Correction of bias from T1 and noise
Liu, C., McKenzie, C. A., Yu, H., Brittain, J. H., & Reeder, S. B. (2007) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.21301 · Cited by 477
Self-citationDual‐echo Dixon imaging with flexible choice of echo times
Eggers, H., Brendel, B., Duijndam, A., & Herigault, G. (2011) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.22578 · Cited by 320
Quantitative MRI and spectroscopy of bone marrow
Karampinos, D. C., Ruschke, S., Dieckmeyer, M., Diefenbach, M., Franz, D., Gersing, A. S., Krug, R., & Baum, T. (2018) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.25769 · Cited by 285
Costa, D. N., Pedrosa, I., McKenzie, C., Reeder, S. B., & Rofsky, N. M. (2008) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.07.3182 · Cited by 87
Self-citationShah, S. A., Echols, J. T., Sun, C., Wolf, M. J., & Epstein, F. H. (2022) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.29348 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Pineda, A. R., Reeder, S. B., Wen, Z., & Pelc, N. J.
- Venue
- Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-09
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 625-635
- ISSN
- 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2594
- OpenAlex
- W2102295630
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cramér–Rao bounds for three‐point decomposition of water and fat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mrm.20623
- The paper
- Pineda, A. R., Reeder, S. B., Wen, Z., & Pelc, N. J. (2005). Cramér–Rao bounds for three‐point decomposition of water and fat. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20623
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.