Comparison of methods for intravoxel incoherent motion parameter estimation in the brain from flow‐compensated and non‐flow‐compensated diffusion‐encoded data

• Published in: Magnetic resonance in medicine Vol. 92; no. 1; pp. 303 - 318
• Main Authors: Jalnefjord, Oscar, Björkman‐Burtscher, Isabella M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.07.2024
• Subjects: Algorithms; Bayesian analysis; Brain; Coding; Data acquisition; Data analysis; Deep learning; diffusion; Diffusion coefficient; IVIM; Machine learning; model fitting; MRI; Noise levels; Parameter estimation; perfusion; Radiologi och bildbehandling; Radiology and Medical Imaging; Reproducibility; diffusion; IVIM; perfusion; MRI; model fitting
• ISSN: 0740-3194; 1522-2594; 1522-2594
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.30042

Purpose Joint analysis of flow‐compensated (FC) and non‐flow‐compensated (NC) diffusion MRI (dMRI) data has been suggested for increased robustness of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameter estimation. For this purpose, a set of methods commonly used or previously found useful for IVIM analysis of dMRI data obtained with conventional diffusion encoding were evaluated in healthy human brain. Methods Five methods for joint IVIM analysis of FC and NC dMRI data were compared: (1) direct non‐linear least squares fitting, (2) a segmented fitting algorithm with estimation of the diffusion coefficient from higher b‐values of NC data, (3) a Bayesian algorithm with uniform prior distributions, (4) a Bayesian algorithm with spatial prior distributions, and (5) a deep learning‐based algorithm. Methods were evaluated on brain dMRI data from healthy subjects and simulated data at multiple noise levels. Bipolar diffusion encoding gradients were used with b‐values 0–200 s/mm2 and corresponding flow weighting factors 0–2.35 s/mm for NC data and by design 0 for FC data. Data were acquired twice for repeatability analysis. Results Measurement repeatability as well as estimation bias and variability were at similar levels or better with the Bayesian algorithm with spatial prior distributions and the deep learning‐based algorithm for IVIM parameters D$$ D $$ and f$$ f $$, and for the Bayesian algorithm only for vd$$ {v}_d $$, relative to the other methods. Conclusion A Bayesian algorithm with spatial prior distributions is preferable for joint IVIM analysis of FC and NC dMRI data in the healthy human brain, but deep learning‐based algorithms appear promising.