CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsMRI in cancer diagnosisAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Effect of inaccurate b-values from imaging gradients on intravoxel incoherent motion

Open access
Rashid, Ivan A., Szczepankiewicz, Filip, Gunnlaugsson, Adalsteinn, Olsson, Lars E., Brynolfsson, Patrik·2025·Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/mrm.30579PMC PMC12309886
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: Neglecting imaging gradients in b‐value calculations has been a documented issue for decades and remains unaccounted for in the current postprocessing pipelines. This omission may introduce inaccuracies that propagate into diffusion parameter estimates, such as in ADC and DTI analysis. Because intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) makes use of low b‐values, these inaccuracies may be of greater importance. This study examines the impact of biased b‐values on IVIM analysis in simulations and in vivo. Methods: In simulations, b‐values were calculated for two pulsed gradient spin‐echo sequence designs: one with large cross‐terms between imaging and diffusion gradients, and one with minimal cross‐terms. Biased and unbiased b‐values were calculated from sequences with 200 diffusion directions. These b‐values were used to generate IVIM signal curves for parameter estimation. Simulations were repeated with varying in‐plane resolutions (1–4 mm) and slice thicknesses (2–10 mm). Additionally, 15 prostate exams were analyzed with scanner‐provided b‐values and actual b‐values derived from the gradient waveforms of the full pulse sequence. Results: The magnitude and direction of errors in IVIM parameters depended on pulse sequence design. Errors persisted until the full contribution of imaging gradients was considered. Errors in the in vivo data were coherent with the simulations, showing errors of −0.7% in f , 0.8 μm 2 /ms in D* , and 0.07 μm 2 /ms in D . Conclusion: Ignoring imaging gradients in b‐value calculations introduces unnecessary inaccuracies, making IVIM results spurious and highly dependent on specific pulse sequence design and imaging parameters. These inaccuracies can be corrected by adjusting the b‐value calculations, without additional measurements.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mrm.30579

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In imaging practice, the ideal narrow-pulse Stejskal-Tanner equation is insufficient because imaging gradient pulses, crusher gradient pulses, and their cross-terms with diffusion-encoding gradients can contribute substantially to diffusion signal attenuation.

    “In imaging practice, however, the ideal narrow pulse Stejskal–Tanner equation is insufficient because imaging gradient pulses, crusher gradient pulses, and their cross-terms with the diffusion-encoding gradient pulses can contribute substantially to the diffusion signal attenuation (Cohen et al., 2015; Le Bihan & Breton, 1985; Rashid et al., 2025).”

    From 40 Years of diffusion MRI in the brain: From history to emerging frontiers (2026) · cites this paper as Rashid et al., 2025

  • Accurate b-value calculation is critical, including imaging gradients and cross-terms with diffusion-encoding gradients, as these effects are far from negligible at low b-values.

    “Especially, accurate b-value calculation is critical, including imaging gradients and cross-terms with diffusion-encoding gradients, as these effects are far from negligible at low b-values (Cohen et al., 2015; Rashid et al., 2025).”

    From 40 Years of diffusion MRI in the brain: From history to emerging frontiers (2026) · cites this paper as Rashid et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [1]Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR. Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion‐weighted MRI: reality and challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 1351‐ 1361. 21606299
  2. [2]Le Bihan D. What can we see with IVIM MRI? Neuroimage. 2019; 187: 56‐ 67. 29277647
  3. [3]Iima M. Perfusion‐driven Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI in oncology: applications, challenges, and future trends. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2021; 20: 125‐ 138. 32536681 PMC8203481
  4. [4]Federau C. Intravoxel incoherent motion MRI as a means to measure in vivo perfusion: a review of the evidence. NMR Biomed. 2017; 30: e3780. 28885745
  5. [5]Jalnefjord O, Montelius M, Starck G, Ljungberg M. Optimization of b‐value schemes for estimation of the diffusion coefficient and the perfusion fraction with segmented intravoxel incoherent motion model fitting. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 82: 1541‐ 1552. 31148264 PMC6772171
  6. [6]Gurney‐Champion OJ, Rauh SS, Harrington K, Oelfke U, Laun FB, Wetscherek A. Optimal acquisition scheme for flow‐compensated intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion‐weighted imaging in the abdomen: an accurate and precise clinically feasible protocol. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 83: 1003‐ 1015. 31566262 PMC6899942
  7. [7]Merisaari H, Federau C. Signal to noise and b‐value analysis for optimal intra‐voxel incoherent motion imaging in the brain. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0257545. 34555054 PMC8459980
  8. [8]Simchick G, Geng R, Zhang Y, Hernando D. b value and first‐order motion moment optimized data acquisition for repeatable quantitative intravoxel incoherent motion DWI. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 87: 2724‐ 2740. 35092092 PMC9275352
  9. [9]Paganelli C, Zampini MA, Morelli L, et al. Optimizing b‐values schemes for diffusion MRI of the brain with segmented Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023; 24: e13986. 37031365 PMC10243330
  10. [10]Fadnavis S, Endres S, Wen Q, et al. Bifurcated topological optimization for IVIM. Front Neurosci. 2021; 15: 779025. 34975382 PMC8714828
  11. [11]Kaandorp MPT, Barbieri S, Klaassen R, et al. Improved unsupervised physics‐informed deep learning for intravoxel incoherent motion modeling and evaluation in pancreatic cancer patients. Magn Reson Med. 2021; 86: 2250‐ 2265. 34105184 PMC8362093
  12. [12]Kaandorp MPT, Zijlstra F, Federau C, While PT. Deep learning intravoxel incoherent motion modeling: exploring the impact of training features and learning strategies. Magn Reson Med. 2023; 90: 312‐ 328. 36912473
  13. [13]Jalnefjord O, Björkman‐Burtscher IM. Comparison of methods for intravoxel incoherent motion parameter estimation in the brain from flow‐compensated and non‐flow‐compensated diffusion‐encoded data. Magn Reson Med. 2024; 92: 303‐ 318. 38321596
  14. [14]Wetscherek A, Stieltjes B, Laun FB. Flow‐compensated intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2015; 74: 410‐ 419. 25116325
  15. [15]Ahlgren A, Knutsson L, Wirestam R, et al. Quantification of microcirculatory parameters by joint analysis of flow‐compensated and non‐flow‐compensated intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) data. NMR Biomed. 2016; 29: 640‐ 649. 26952166 PMC5069652
  16. [16]Jerome NP, d'Arcy JA, Feiweier T, et al. Extended T2‐IVIM model for correction of TE dependence of pseudo‐diffusion volume fraction in clinical diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2016; 61: N667‐ N680. 27893459 PMC5952260
  17. [17]Jalnefjord O, Rosenqvist L, Warsame A, Björkman‐Burtscher IM. Signal drift in diffusion MRI of the brain: effects on intravoxel incoherent motion parameter estimates. MAGMA. 2024; 37: 1005‐ 1019. 39003384 PMC11582154
  18. [18]Conturo TE, McKinstry RC, Aronovitz JA, Neil JJ. Diffusion MRI: precision, accuracy and flow effects. NMR Biomed. 1995; 8: 307‐ 332. 8739269
  19. [19]Neeman M, Freyer JP, Sillerud LO. Pulsed‐gradient spin‐echo diffusion studies in nmr imaging. Effects of the imaging gradients on the determination of diffusion coefficients. J Magn Reson 1969. 1990; 90: 303‐ 312.
  20. [20]O'Connor JPB, Aboagye EO, Adams JE, et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017; 14: 169‐ 186. 27725679 PMC5378302
  21. [21]Hompland T, Hole KH, Ragnum HB, et al. Combined MR imaging of oxygen consumption and supply reveals tumor hypoxia and aggressiveness in prostate cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2018; 78: 4774‐ 4785. 29945958
  22. [22]Eis M, Hoehnberlage M. Correction of gradient crosstalk and optimization of measurement parameters in diffusion MR imaging. J Magn Reson B. 1995; 107: 222‐ 234.
  23. [23]Brockstedt S, Thomsen C, Wirestam R, Holtås S, Ståhlberg F. Quantitative diffusion coefficient maps using fast spin‐echo MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998; 16: 877‐ 886. 9814769
  24. [24]Zubkov M, Stait‐Gardner T, Price WS. Efficient and precise calculation of the b‐matrix elements in diffusion‐weighted imaging pulse sequences. J Magn Reson San Diego Calif 1997. 2014; 243: 65‐ 73. 24747787
  25. [25]Neeman M, Freyer JP, Sillerud LO. A simple method for obtaining cross‐term‐free images for diffusion anisotropy studies in NMR microimaging. Magn Reson Med. 1991; 21: 138‐ 143. 1943671
  26. [26]Mattiello J, Basser PJ, Le Bihan D. The b matrix in diffusion tensor echo‐planar imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1997; 37: 292‐ 300. 9001155
  27. [28]Özcan A. Characterization of imaging gradients in diffusion tensor imaging. J Magn Reson. 2010; 207: 24‐ 33. 20810298 PMC2956793
  28. [29]Nair G, Hu XP. Manifestation and post hoc correction of gradient cross‐term artifacts in DTI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30: 764‐ 773. 22495240 PMC3367036
  29. [30]Brihuega‐Moreno O, Heese FP, Tejos C, Hall LD. Effects of, and corrections for, cross‐term interactions in Q‐space MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2004; 51: 1048‐ 1054. 15122689
  30. [31]Lundell H, Alexander DC, Dyrby TB. High angular resolution diffusion imaging with stimulated echoes: compensation and correction in experiment design and analysis. NMR Biomed. 2014; 27: 918‐ 925. 24890716 PMC4312915
  31. [32]Özcan A. Theoretical and experimental analysis of imaging gradients in DTI. 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Minneapolis, MN. IEEE; 2009; Vol 2009: 2703‐ 2706. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5332852 PMC3115739 19963783
  32. [33]Bernstein MA, Zhou XJ. Chapter 14: Basic pulse sequences. In: Bernstein MA, King KF, Zhou XJ, Handbook of MRI Pulse Sequences. Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
  33. [34]Yuan L, Wu D, He H, Zhong J. A general framework for automated accurate calculation of b‐matrix (auto‐b) in diffusion MRI pulse sequences. Concepts Magn Reson Part B. 2023; 2023: e4610812.
  34. [35]Szczepankiewicz F, Sjölund J. Cross‐term‐compensated gradient waveform design for tensor‐valued diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson San Diego Calif 1997. 2021; 328: 106991. 33984713
  35. [36]Mattiello J, Basser PJ, Lebihan D. Analytical expressions for the b matrix in NMR diffusion imaging and spectroscopy. J Magn Reson A. 1994; 108: 131‐ 141.
  36. [37]Westin CF, Knutsson H, Pasternak O, et al. Q‐space trajectory imaging for multidimensional diffusion MRI of the human brain. Neuroimage. 2016; 135: 345‐ 362. 26923372 PMC4916005
  37. [38]Landheer K, Juchem C. Dephasing optimization through coherence order pathway selection (DOTCOPS) for improved crusher schemes in MR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 81: 2209‐ 2222. 30390346
  38. [39]Le Bihan D. Magnetic resonance diffusion imaging: introduction and concepts. In: Jones DK, ed. Diffusion MRI: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Oxford University Press; 2010: 57‐ 78.
  39. [41]He N, Li Z, Li X, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion‐weighted imaging used to detect prostate cancer and stratify tumor grade: a meta‐analysis. Front Oncol. 2020; 10: 1623. 33042805 PMC7518084
  40. [42]Stejskal EO, Tanner JE. Spin diffusion measurements: spin echoes in the presence of a time‐dependent field gradient. J Chem Phys. 1965; 42: 288‐ 292.
  41. [43]Lebel RM. Performance characterization of a novel deep learning‐based MR image reconstruction pipeline. 2020 arXiv:2008.06559v1 [eess.IV]. · arXiv
  42. [44]Schneider MJ, Gaass T, Ricke J, Dinkel J, Dietrich O. Assessment of intravoxel incoherent motion MRI with an artificial capillary network: analysis of biexponential and phase‐distribution models. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 82: 1373‐ 1384. 31131482 PMC6771596
  43. [45]Hsu EW, Mori S. Analytical expressions for the NMR apparent diffusion coefficients in an anisotropic system and a simplified method for determining fiber orientation. Magn Reson Med. 1995; 34: 194‐ 200. 7476078

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • 40 Years of diffusion MRI in the brain: From history to emerging frontiers

    Le Bihan, D. (2026) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag.a.1365

    “With Gaussian (free) diffusion, the normalized signal attenuation, S(b)/S(0), obeys in the ideal narrow-pulse Stejskal– Tanner limit using a pair of gradients of amplitude g, duration δ , and separation Δ , with δ << Δ is: In imaging practice, however, the ideal narrow pulse Stejskal– Tanner equation is insufficient b…”
    Influential

Authors
Rashid, I. A., Szczepankiewicz, F., Gunnlaugsson, A., Olsson, L. E., & Brynolfsson, P.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Rashid, Ivan A.
ORCID
Venue
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-06-02
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
1514-1528
ISSN
  • 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2594
DOI
10.1002/mrm.30579
PMC
PMC12309886
OpenAlex
W4411006273
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 1
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fru Berta Kamprads Stiftelse
  • Cancerfonden (21 1910 S, 22 0592 JIA, 22 2011 Pj)
  • Allmänna Sjukhusets i Malmö Stiftelse för Bekämpande av Cancer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion-weighted imaging, pulsed gradient spin echo, diffusion parameter estimation, apparent diffusion coefficient, diffusion tensor imaging, prostate MRI, in-plane resolution, slice thickness
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Motion, Prostate, Prostatic Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Phantoms, Imaging, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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