1 / 22

Optimal Design with Automatic Differentiation: Exploring Unbiased Steady-State Relaxometry

Optimal Design with Automatic Differentiation: Exploring Unbiased Steady-State Relaxometry. Jan 13, 2014 Jason Su. Outline. Concept and theory Practical usage with automatic differentiation (AD) Exploring relaxometry with SPGR and bSSFP. Motivation.

kieu
Download Presentation

Optimal Design with Automatic Differentiation: Exploring Unbiased Steady-State Relaxometry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Optimal Design with Automatic Differentiation:Exploring Unbiased Steady-State Relaxometry Jan 13, 2014 Jason Su

  2. Outline • Concept and theory • Practical usage with automatic differentiation (AD) • Exploring relaxometry with SPGR and bSSFP

  3. Motivation • I started with the goal of trying to optimize mcDESPOT and the estimate of MWF • Lankford et al. criticized the theoretical accuracy of mcDESPOT based on CRLB analysis • Interestingly however, this criticism inspired the approach to finding the solution • Since then, I’ve discovered that this project can have greater possibilities • The following provides a framework that is suitable for the analysis, comparison, and optimization of a broad range of parameter mapping/estimation methods • T1, T21, B1+, B0, MT, diffusion coefficient2, etc. [1] Jones et al. JMR 1996 Oct;113(1):25-34. [2] Brihuega-Moreno et al. MRM 2003 Nov;50(5):1069-76.

  4. Idea • The Cramer-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) provides a “best case” limit on the variance of an estimator of parameter • In quantitative MR, the estimator is defined by the applied pulse sequence and protocol details • Typically this is used as an analysis tool, but what if we instead use it as a cost function? • We want to solve the problem: • Find the protocol that gives the lowest variance estimate of θ • This is hard to solve for non-linear equations, relax it to: • Find the protocol that gives the best lower bound on the variance of the estimate of θ

  5. CRLB: Fisher Information Matrix • Typically calculated for a given tissue, θ • Interpretation • J captures the sensitivity of the signal equation to changes in a parameter • Its “invertibility” or conditioning is howseparable parameters are from each other,i.e. the specificity of the measurement

  6. CRLB: How does it work? • A common formulation • Unbiased estimator • A signal equation with normally distributed noise • Measurement noise is independent

  7. CRLB: Computing the Jacobian

  8. Automatic Differentiation • An algorithm for generating computer programs that calculate derivatives of other functions based on their source code/graph • Uses repeated application of the chain rule • Fast and accurate to machine precision • Can differentiate extremely complicated functions • Many packages exist for Matlab, C, and Python • Typically you will write the function that computes your signal equation • Then your AD package provides the derivatives essentially for free, i.e. no analysis or coding effort • YMMV depending on the language or package

  9. What does this buy us?

  10. Application • To vet this approach and my code, which is ultimately intended for open-source use • Went back to analyze a number of classic designs to see if I could reproduce them • Diffusion coefficient, VFA/DESPOT1, DESPOT2 • In all cases, the answer was yes • The DESPOT2-cast was particularly interesting

  11. Steady-State Relaxometry with bSSFP and SPGR (aka DESPOT2) • DESPOT2 seeks to estimate T1 and T2 • First do VFA/DESPOT1 with a pair of SPGR images at ~0.71 signal level to get a T1 map • Then acquire a pair of π-phase-cycled bSSFP images at ~0.71 signal level and back out T2, knowing T1 from step 1 • Constraints: • Phase-cycling is π • Acquisition time is equal between the angles in a pair, only optimize the relative time between the SPGR and bSSFP parts of the experiment

  12. Methods • Find α’s and acquisition time fraction • Minimize the sum of the coefficient of variations (CoV) of T1 and T2: σT1/T1+σT2/T2 • Where σ was provided by the CRLB which uses the Jacobians of the SPGR and bSSFP signal equations • Exhaustively search for the # SPGR and bSSFP images • Fix the total acquisition time so we find the best protocol per unit time • Optimize for representative T1 and T2 values of WM and GM at 3T • WM (T1=1100ms, T2=60ms) and GM (T1=1645ms, T2=85ms)

  13. Solver • Used a general solver for this problem • This is the weakest part of the framework as the solver sometimes fails to converge or encounters inversion errors • May be improved with insights from optimal design theory, e.g. using determinant of F instead of actual CRLB

  14. Results • To within 5 decimal places, framework says to acquire the pairs of flip angles at 1/√2 of the max signal for SPGR and π-phase-cycled bSSFP • Compared to the original literature estimate of 0.71 (Deoni 2003) • I later found that 1/√2 was shown to be the analytically correct solution (Schabel and Morell 2009) • ~75% of time should be spent on SPGRs and T1 map • Optimal DESPOT2 protocols achieve a sum of T1 and T2 CoVs of 45.7 and 53.0 for WM and GM

  15. Unrestricted Problem • Can we do better? • What if we remove the constraints from the DESPOT2 acquisition? • Allow any combination of SPGRs and bSSFPs to be used, forget about the 2-stage estimate of T1 then T2 and reconstruct with a joint nonlinear fit • Allow any phase-cycle to be used • Allow the acquisition time for any image to be freely adjustable

  16. PCVFA Solution • The 0 and π phase cycles should be collected, each with a pair of flip angles that attain 1/√2 of the max signal for that phase-cycle • Equal time fraction should be devoted to each of the 4 images • Achieves a sum of CoVs of 20.8 and 21.6 for WM and GM • More than 2.1x improvement over DESPOT2

  17. Performance of Optimal GM Protocol over a Range of Tissues DESPOT2 PCVFA

  18. Experimental Validation • In progress with silicone oil phantom at 3T to mitigate B1 inhomogeneity • Harder to acquire DESPOT2 optimal sequence due to time difference between SPGR and bSSFP parts • Fractional angles by adjusting ia_rf1, <1 deg. Needed for PCVFA • Had difficulties doing linear and nonlinear fit for DESPOT2 and PCVFA with acquired data • Maybe made an error in the acquisition, should try again

  19. One step further • What if we used complex images for the reconstruction? • 21.6 -> 10.81 • Another 2x gain?

  20. Complex PCVFA vs. Magn. PCVFA

  21. Summary • This framework gives the ability to study complex pulse sequences and their efficacy analytically • A way to formally compare and explore potential mapping methods • Gets closer to answering the question of, what is the best way of mapping X? • But may not include considerations like immunity to B1+ inhomogeneity or ease of fitting

  22. Next Steps • Robust protocol design • Have been looking at B0 robustness, where cost function evaluates CRLB at many B0 values and try to optimize the worst case estimate of θ among them • B1+ robustness • Broad comparison of efficiency of mapping methods • T1 or B1+ mapping is probably a good candidate • mcDESPOT and MWF • MPnRAGE, what should n be? • Analyzing bloch simulations, MRF?

More Related