On the accuracy of T1 mapping: Searching for common ground
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: There are many T1 mapping methods available, each of them validated in phantoms and reporting excellent agreement with literature. However, values in literature vary greatly, with T1 in white matter ranging from 690 to 1100 ms at 3 Tesla. This brings into question the accuracy of one of the most fundamental measurements in quantitative MRI. Our goal was to explain these variations and look into ways of mitigating them. THEORY AND METHODS: We evaluated the three most common T1 mapping methods (inversion recovery, Look-Locker, and variable flip angle) through Bloch simulations, a white matter phantom and the brains of 10 healthy subjects (single-slice). We pooled the T1 histograms of the subjects to determine whether there is a sequence-dependent bias and whether it is reproducible across subjects. RESULTS: We found good agreement between the three methods in phantoms, but poor agreement in vivo, with the white matter T1 histogram peak in healthy subjects varying by more than 30% depending on the method used. We also found that the pooled brain histograms displayed three distinct white matter peaks, with Look-Locker consistently underestimating, and variable flip angle overestimating the inversion recovery T1 values. The Bloch simulations indicated that incomplete spoiling and inaccurate B1 mapping could account for the observed differences. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the three most common T1 mapping protocols produce stable T1 values in phantoms, but not in vivo. To improve the accuracy of T1 mapping, we recommend that sites perform in vivo validation of their T1 mapping method against the inversion recovery reference method, as the first step toward developing a robust calibration scheme.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The T1 quantification method used here has been criticized for inaccuracies from RF field inhomogeneities.
“The method we used to quantify T1 has been recently criticized as suffering from inaccuracies due to RF field inhomogeneities (Lankford and Does, 2013; Stikov et al., 2014).”
From Multi-modal characterization of rapid anterior hippocampal volume increase associated with aerobic exercise (2016) · cites this paper as Stikov et al., 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 285
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Kingsley PB. Methods of measuring spin-lattice (T1) relaxation times: an annotated bibliography. Concepts Magn Reson 1999;11:243-276.
- Weiss GH, Gupta RK, Ferretti JA, Becker ED. The choice of optimal parameters for measurement of spin lattice relaxation times. J Magn Reson 1980;37:369-379.
- Sacolick LI, Wiesinger F, Hancu I, Vogel MW. B1 mapping by Bloch- Siegert shift. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:1315-1322.
- Sled JG, Pike GB. Correction for B(1) and B(0) variations in quantita- tive T(2) measurements using MRI. Magn Reson Med 2000;43:589- 593.
- Keenan KE, Boss M, Jackson EF, Kown S-J, Jennings D, Russek S. NIST/ISMRM MRI system phantom T1 measurements on multiple MRI systems. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2013. Abstract 4338.
- Lutti A, Weiskopf N. Optimizing the accuracy of T1 mapping accounting for RF non-linearities and spoiling characteristics in FLASH imaging. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2013. Abstract 2478.
- Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, Escaravage M, Graham SJ, Bronskill MJ, Henkelman RM. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:507-512.
- Authors
- Stikov, N., Boudreau, M., Levesque, I. R., Tardif, C. L., Barral, J. K., & Pike, G. B.
- Affiliations
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
- Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University Stanford, California USA
- Corresponding author
- Stikov, Nikola
- Venue
- Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-02-27
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 514-522
- ISSN
- 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2594
- OpenAlex
- W2152572524
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 13.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › NMR spectroscopy and applications
- Keywords
- T1 mapping, inversion recovery, variable flip angle, Bloch simulation, B1 mapping, measurement agreement, in vivo validation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Algorithms, Brain, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results
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