Validation of Highly Accelerated Wave–CAIPI SWI Compared with Conventional SWI and T2*-Weighted Gradient Recalled-Echo for Routine Clinical Brain MRI at 3T

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Nandigam RN,
   2. Viswanathan A,
   3. Delgado P, et al

   . MR imaging detection of cerebral microbleeds: effect of susceptibility-weighted imaging, section thickness, and field strength. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:338–43 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1355 pmid:19001544

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Haacke EM,
   2. Mittal S,
   3. Wu Z, et al

   . Susceptibility-weighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, Part 1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:19–30 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1400 pmid:19039041

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Mittal S,
   2. Wu Z,
   3. Neelavalli J, et al

   . Susceptibility-weighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, Part 2. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:232–52 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1461 pmid:19131406

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Havsteen I,
   2. Ohlhues A,
   3. Madsen KH, et al

   . Are movement artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging a real problem? A narrative review. Front Neurol 2017;8:1–8 doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00232 pmid:28138322

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Munn Z,
   2. Pearson A,
   3. Jordan Z, et al

   . Patient anxiety and satisfaction in a magnetic resonance imaging department: initial results from an action research study. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2015;46:23–29 doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2014.07.006 pmid:31052060

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Bilgic B,
   2. Gagoski BA,
   3. Cauley SF, et al

   . Wave-CAIPI for highly accelerated 3D imaging. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:2152–62 doi:10.1002/mrm.25347 pmid:24986223

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Cauley SF,
   2. Setsompop K,
   3. Bilgic B, et al

   . Autocalibrated wave-CAIPI reconstruction; joint optimization of k-space trajectory and parallel imaging reconstruction. Magn Reson Med 2017;78:1093–99 doi:10.1002/mrm.26499 pmid:27770457

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Bilgic B,
   2. Xie L,
   3. Dibb R, et al

   . Rapid multi-orientation quantitative susceptibility mapping. Neuroimage 2016;125:1131–41 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.015 pmid:26277773

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Bilgic B,
   2. Ye H,
   3. Wald LL, et al

   . Simultaneous time interleaved multislice (STIMS) for rapid susceptibility weighted acquisition. Neuroimage 2017;155:577–86 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.036 pmid:28435102

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Conklin J,
    2. Cauley S,
    3. Setsompop K, et al

    . Optimization and Clinical Evaluation of Wave-CAIPI Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging (SWI) for Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Illinois. November 25–30, 2018; SSE24-04
11. 11.↵
    1. Gregoire SM,
    2. Chaudhary UJ,
    3. Brown MM, et al

    . The Microbleed Anatomical Rating Scale (MARS): reliability of a tool to map brain microbleeds. Neurology 2009;73:1759–66 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181c34a7d pmid:19933977

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Ahn S,
    2. Park SH,
    3. Lee KH.

    How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 2013;267:328–38 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120725 pmid:23610094

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Lakens D,
    2. Scheel AM,
    3. Isager PM.

    Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2018;1:259–69 doi:10.1177/2515245918770963

    CrossRef
14. 14.↵
    1. Cohen J.

    Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988
15. 15.↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG.

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310 pmid:843571

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Redd V,
    2. Levin S,
    3. Toerper M, et al

    . Effects of fully accessible magnetic resonance imaging in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:741–49 doi:10.1111/acem.12686 pmid:25998846

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Wilson D,
    2. Ambler G,
    3. Shakeshaft C, et al

    . Cerebral microbleeds and intracranial haemorrhage risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation after acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (CROMIS-2): a multicentre observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:539–47 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30145-5 pmid:29778365

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Runge VM,
    2. Wood ML,
    3. Kaufman DM, et al

    . FLASH: clinical three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Radiographics 1988;8:947–65 doi:10.1148/radiographics.8.5.3227132 pmid:3227132

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Yamada N,
    2. Imakita S,
    3. Sakuma T, et al

    . Intracranial calcification on gradient-echo phase image: depiction of diamagnetic susceptibility. Radiology 1996;198:171–78 doi:10.1148/radiology.198.1.8539373 pmid:8539373

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Andre JB,
    2. Bresnahan BW,
    3. Mossa-Basha M, et al

    . Toward quantifying the prevalence, severity, and cost associated with patient motion during clinical MR examinations. J Am Coll Radiology 2015;12:689–95 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.007 pmid:25963225

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Callaghan MF,
    2. Josephs O,
    3. Herbst M, et al

    . An evaluation of prospective motion correction (PMC) for high resolution quantitative MRI. Front Neurosci 2015;9:97 doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00097 pmid:25859178

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Haskell MW,
    2. Cauley SF,
    3. Wald LL.

    TArgeted Motion Estimation and Reduction (TAMER): Data consistency based motion mitigation for MRI using a reduced model joint optimization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2018;37:1253–65 doi:10.1109/TMI.2018.2791482 pmid:29727288

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Wu B,
    2. Li W,
    3. Guidon A, et al

    . Whole brain susceptibility mapping using compressed sensing. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:137–47 doi:10.1002/mrm.23000 pmid:21671269

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Reitsma JB,
    2. Rutjes AWS,
    3. Khan KS, et al

    . A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:797–806 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 pmid:19447581

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Lee SJ,
    2. Park SH,
    3. Kim AY, et al

    . A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:50–57 doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6582 pmid:21701010

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Schaefer PJ,
    2. Boudghene FP,
    3. Brambs HJ, et al

    . Abdominal and iliac arterial stenoses: comparative double-blinded randomized study of diagnostic accuracy of 3D MR angiography with gadodiamide or gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2006;238:827–40 doi:10.1148/radiol.2383041769 pmid:16424245

    CrossRefPubMed