Magnetization transfer explains most of the T variability in the MRI literature.

PURPOSE

To identify the predominant source of the variability described in the literature, which ranges from 0.6-1.1 s for brain white matter at 3 T.

METHODS

25 -mapping methods from the literature were simulated with a mono-exponential and various magnetization-transfer (MT) models, each followed by mono-exponential fitting. A single set of model parameters was assumed for the simulation of all methods, and these parameters were estimated by fitting the simulation-based to the corresponding literature values of white matter at 3 T. We acquired in vivo data with a quantitative magnetization transfer and three -mapping techniques. The former was used to synthesize MR images that correspond to the three -mapping methods. A mono-exponential model was fitted to the experimental and corresponding synthesized MR images.

RESULTS

Mono-exponential simulations suggest good inter-method reproducibility and fail to explain the highly variable estimates in the literature. In contrast, MT simulations suggest that a mono-exponential fit results in a variable and explain up to 62% of the literature's variability. In our own in vivo experiments, MT explains 70% of the observed variability.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a mono-exponential model does not adequately describe longitudinal relaxation in biological tissue. Therefore, in biological tissue should be considered only a semi-quantitative metric that is inherently contingent upon the imaging methodology, and comparisons between different -mapping methods and the use of simplistic spin systems-such as doped-water phantoms-for validation should be viewed with caution.