ORIENTATION-INDEPENDENT ORDER PARAMETER DERIVED FROM MAGNETIC RESONANCE R1P DISPERSION IN ORDERED TISSUE

Abstract

Techniques for analyzing ordered tissue to calculate an orientation-independent order parameter S that is sensitive to the collagen microstructural integrity in cartilage are provided. An magnetic resonance image of ordered tissue may be acquired, and based on the image, an R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue may be measured. R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) values for the ordered tissue may be derived based on the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue. An orientation-independent order parameter S may be calculated for the ordered tissue using the following equation:

[00001]$S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3d^2}\frac{R_2^a\left(\alpha \right)}{{\tau }_b\left(\alpha \right)}}.$

The level of degeneration of the ordered tissue may be determined based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue. In order to derive this valuable order parameter efficiently and reliably in clinical studies, an optimized spin-lock preparation strategy was introduced, including a novel fully-refocused spin-locking pulse sequence and a constant R.sub.1ρ weighting with both spin-lock duration and strength being altered simultaneously.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: acquiring, by a processor, a magnetic resonance image of an ordered tissue; measuring, by a processor, based on the magnetic resonance image of the ordered tissue, an R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue; deriving, by a processor, R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) for the ordered tissue based on the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue; calculating, by a processor, an orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, using the following equation: $S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3d^2}\frac{R_2^a\left(\alpha \right)}{{\tau }_b\left(\alpha \right)}};$ and determining, by a processor, based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, a level of degeneration of the ordered tissue.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a lower value for the orientation-independent order parameter S corresponds to a greater degeneration of the ordered tissue, and wherein a higher value for the orientation-independent order parameter S corresponds to a lesser degeneration of the ordered tissue.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by a processor, an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue comprises: determining an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue being below a certain threshold value.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the ordered tissue is one of: nerve tissue, white matter tissue, intervertebral disk, skeletal muscle tissue, myocardial muscle tissue, tendon tissue, or cartilage tissue.

6. A system, comprising: a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device configured to capture a magnetic resonance image of an ordered tissue; one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: measure, based on the magnetic resonance image of the ordered tissue, an R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue; derive R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) for the ordered tissue based on the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue; calculate an orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, using the following equation: $S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3d^2}\frac{R_2^a\left(\alpha \right)}{{\tau }_b\left(\alpha \right)}};$ and determine, based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, a level of degeneration of the ordered tissue.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein a lower value for the orientation-independent order parameter S corresponds to a greater degeneration of the ordered tissue, and wherein a higher value for the orientation-independent order parameter S corresponds to a lesser degeneration of the ordered tissue.

8. The system of claim 6, wherein the instructions further cause the processors to: determine an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue.

9. The system of claim 8, wherein determining an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue comprises: determining an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue being below a certain threshold value.

10. The system of claim 6, wherein the ordered tissue is one of: nerve tissue, white matter tissue, intervertebral disk, skeletal muscle tissue, myocardial muscle tissue, tendon tissue, or cartilage tissue.

11. A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to: acquire a magnetic resonance image of an ordered tissue; measure, based on the magnetic resonance image of the ordered tissue, an R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue; derive R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) for the ordered tissue based on the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue; calculate an orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, using the following equation: $S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3d^2}\frac{R_2^a\left(\alpha \right)}{{\tau }_b\left(\alpha \right)}};$ and determine, based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, a level of degeneration of the ordered tissue.

12. The tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein a lower value for the orientation-independent order parameter S corresponds to a greater degeneration of the ordered tissue, and wherein a higher value for the orientation-independent order parameter S corresponds to a lesser degeneration of the ordered tissue.

13. The tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: determine an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue.

14. The tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein determining an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue comprises: determining an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue being below a certain threshold value.

15. The tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the ordered tissue is one of: nerve tissue, white matter tissue, intervertebral disk, skeletal muscle tissue, myocardial muscle tissue, tendon tissue, or cartilage tissue.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0021] Table 1 illustrates partitioned transverse relaxation R.sub.2 absolute (1/s) and relative (%) rates, average orientation-dependent R.sub.1ρ dispersion parameters τ.sub.b (μs) and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) (1/s), and derived order parameters S (10.sup.−3) in the deep zone from four bovine patellar cartilage specimens at 9.4T. Note, θ.sub.MA(°) and τ.sub.ex (μs) represent respectively an orientation with a minimal R.sub.2 and a chemical exchange correlation time. All data are reported as mean±standard deviation.

[0022] Table 2 illustrates average measured and modeled R.sub.1ρ dispersion parameters in the femoral, tibial and patellar cartilage from one live human knee. All data are reported as mean±standard deviation.

[0023] Table 3 illustrates tailored spin-lock RF durations (“spin-lock time” or “TSL”) and strengths or powers (PWR, i.e. ω.sub.1/2π) for the constant magnetization preparations (M.sub.prep) used in quantitative R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol. Note that these specific values were determined assuming R.sub.2.sup.i=R.sub.2.sup.a20 (1/s) and τ.sub.b=300 (μs).

[0024] Table 4 illustrates simulated noisy R.sub.1ρ dispersion quantification under influences of various SNR, with (+) and without (−) an internal reference. The key input model parameters were given as follows: R.sub.2.sup.i=R.sub.2.sup.a=20 (1/s) and =τ.sub.b=300 (μs), and simulations were performed for different prepared R.sub.1ρ magnetization (M.sub.prep). The group of “All” includes all three M.sub.prep groups, i.e. 50%+60%+70%. Note that an order parameter S (10.sup.−3) of 2.052 can be determined herein given the values of R.sub.2.sup.a and τ.sub.b.

[0025] Table 5 illustrates quantitative dispersion with (+) and without (−) an internal reference (REF1) for two radially-segmented ROIs (i.e. SZ and DZ of the tibial cartilage) from the first subject's left knee. Note that the “All” group includes all three M.sub.prep groups, i.e. 50%+60%+70%, and the fitting results for DZ are displayed in FIG. 14. In Table 5, “DZ” means deep zone; “ROI” means region of interest; and “SZ” means superficial zone.

[0026] Table 6 illustrates quantitative dispersion (=60%) of all knees (n=6), with the second subject (i.e. S2L01 and S2L02) and the third subject having their left knees re-scanned 3 months later. In Table 6, “L” means left; “R” means right; and “S” means subject.

[0027] Table 7 illustrates repeated synthetic and measured (=500 Hz) for the second and third subjects. In Table 7, “DZ” means deep zone; “Exp” means experimental or measured; “Syn” means synthetic; and “SZ” means superficial zone.

[0028] FIG. 1 illustrates a representative (red) dipolar inter-nuclear vector H—H and an effective (black) vector <H—H> alignment in a triple-helix model peptide (A), according to a molecular dynamics simulation study (Copyright© 2016, American Chemical Society). The <H—H> vector (i.e. OA) is characterized without (B) and with (C) an axially symmetric model with its rotational axis in red (7i).

[0029] FIG. 2 illustrates orientation-dependent depth-profile maps for T.sub.2 (A) and standard T.sub.1ρ relaxation times (ms) with a spin-lock RF strength (ω.sub.1/2π) of 2000 Hz (B) from one bovine cartilage sample (B1S2). A horizontal axis starts from articular surface (0%) to bone interface (100%) and the deep zone is defined between 40% and 80% in depth indicated by two vertical dashed lines (B).

[0030] FIG. 3 illustrates orientation-dependent R.sub.1ρ (1/s) relaxations with ω.sub.1/2π=0 (red), 0.25 (green) and 2 kHz (blue) for the same sample B1S2 (A), with the solid lines standing for the best fits to R.sub.2.sup.a(3 cos.sup.2 θ−1).sup.2/4 for the averages in the deep zone indicated by the dashed lines in the middle of shaded areas (±standard deviations), and two R.sub.1ρ (1/s) dispersions when the sample orientated at θ=20° (B) and 60° (C.) relative to B.sub.0.

[0031] FIG. 4 illustrates a scatterplot (A) of τ.sub.b (μs) and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) (1/s) and a box-and-whisker diagram (B) of the derived order parameter S (10.sup.−3) for each of four bovine patellar samples. The order parameter S was only calculated when samples orientated <50° (B1S1 and B.sub.2S3) or <35° (B1S2 and B.sub.1S3) to avoid potential diminishing R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) near the magic angles.

[0032] FIG. 5 illustrates three representative segmented ROIs highlighted by colored arrows in the femoral (red), tibial (green) and patellar (blue) cartilage on one R.sub.1ρ-weighted (ω.sub.1/2π=125 Hz, TSL=1 ms) sagittal image slice (A) and the corresponding R.sub.1-, dispersion curve fittings (solid lines) in the deep zone (B), with error bars standing for the measured R.sub.1ρ standard deviations.

[0033] FIG. 6 illustrates R.sub.1ρ relative distributions (%) in the femoral (red solid), tibial (green dot-dash) and patellar (blue dash) cartilage from one live human knee, dispersed with ω.sub.1/2π=125 Hz (A), 500 Hz (B) and 1000 Hz (C) and the fitted model parameters of R.sub.2.sup.i (D), τ.sub.b (E) and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) (F) for the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersions.

[0034] FIG. 7 illustrates a scatterplot (A) of τ.sub.b (μs) and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) (1/s) and a box-and-whisker diagram (B) of the derived order parameter S (10.sup.−3) from the femoral (red circles), tibial (green squares) and patellar (blue triangles) cartilage in one live human knee.

[0035] FIG. 8 illustrates order parameter S comparisons among human and bovine normal cartilages (A), between two grades of osteoarthritis (OA) in human knee tibial cartilage samples (B) and among enzymatically modified bovine patellar cartilage samples (C).

[0036] FIGS. 9A-9E illustrate two key components in an optimized SL prepared turbo-FLASH sequence (FIGS. 9A-9B), a representative (normalized) R.sub.1ρ-weighting map (FIG. 9C), two examples of prepared transient magnetization towards steady-state evolutions (FIG. 9D) and a k-space filling pattern in two phase-encoding directions (FIG. 9E). Note that TSL and ω.sub.1/2π were respectively limited to [9, 32] (ms) and [0, 1000] (Hz), T.sub.seg=2000 (ms), constant excitation FA α.sub.0=13°, TR=6.8 (ms) and N=64. In FIGS. 9A-9E, “FA” means flip angle; “FLASH” means fast low angle shot; “ms” means millisecond; “SL” means spin-lock; and “TSL” means spin-lock time.

[0037] FIGS. 10A-10F illustrate simulated noisy R.sub.1ρ dispersion quantification with (+, solid line) and without (−, dashed line) an internal reference (REF) under various SNR conditions for different R.sub.1ρ-weighting preparations: Mp=50% (blue), 70% (red) and All (i.e. 50%+60%+70%, black). The quantification accuracy indicated by RMSE (%) is shown respectively for R2i, R2a and τb in FIGS. 10A-10C, and the fitted precision for R2i is presented in FIG. 10D. The fitting biases (%) due to a relative uncertainty δR.sub.2.sup.i (%) are displayed in FIG. 10E for R.sub.2.sup.i (black), R.sub.2.sup.a (red), τ.sub.b (green) and S (blue), and an example of such a biased fitting (black solid line) is demonstrated in FIG. 10F. In FIGS. 10A-10F, “Mp” means magnetization preparation; “RMSE” means root mean square error; and “SNR” means signal-to-noise ratio.

[0038] FIGS. 11A-11D illustrate optimal excitation FA (°) profiles (FIG. 11A) calculated with TR=6.8 (ms) and T.sub.1=1240 (ms) for M.sub.prep from 0 to 100 (%) with N=32 (red), 64 (green), 96 (blue) and 128 (black), an average magnetization obtained from the prepared M.sub.prep using various FAs and N=64 (FIG. 11B), signal profiles measured from femoral condyle (red), tibial (green) and patellar (blue) cartilage with FA α.sub.0 varied from 9° to 17° (FIG. 11C) and an image slice (α.sub.0=13°) showing ROIs from which the signal profiles were taken (FIG. 11D). In FIGS. 11A-11D, “FA” means flip angle; “M.sub.prep” means prepared magnetization; and “ROI” means region of interest.

[0039] FIGS. 12A and 12B illustrate two R.sub.1ρ-weighted (ω.sub.1/2π=500 Hz) images acquired with the developed (improved) R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol (TSL=21 ms, FIG. 12A) and the standard (original) R.sub.1ρ mapping (TSL=20 ms, FIG. 12B). FIG. 12C illustrates overlaid line profiles taken at the same anatomical location from the developed (improved) R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol and the standard (original) R.sub.1ρ mapping. Note that the line profile (blue) from FIG. 12B was scaled up by 2, making it comparable in femoral condyle with that (red) from FIG. 12A. In FIGS. 12A and 12B, “DZ” means deep zone; “LL” means lower left, and “UR” means upper right.

[0040] FIGS. 13A-13D illustrate representative R.sub.1ρ dispersion modeling (solid black lines) with an internal reference. FIG. 13A displays a sagittal imaging slice of the first subject's left knee overlaid with an angular-radial segmentation, a reference orientation (i.e. B.sub.0 direction) and a yellow arrow pointing to an angularly-segmented ROI in the tibial cartilage. Different R.sub.1ρ dispersions were presented for the SZ (FIG. 13B) and the DZ (FIG. 13C) from the segmented ROI based on all three measurements, i.e. M.sub.prep=50% (red circle), 60% (green square), 70% (blue diamond). FIG. 13D highlights the R.sub.1ρ dispersion modeling only for M.sub.prep=60% as shown in FIG. 13C. In FIGS. 13A-13D, “DZ” means deep zone; “M.sub.prep” means prepared magnetization; “ms” means millisecond; “P” means posterior; “REF” means internal reference; “ROI” meanas region of interest; “S” means superior; “SZ” means superficial zone; and “TSL” means spin-lock time.

[0041] FIGS. 14A-14D illustrate quantitative R.sub.1ρ dispersion on all and subgroup measurements as shown in FIG. 5C, with (+, red bars) and without (−, blue bars) an REF1, for modeled R.sub.2.sup.i (FIG. 14A), R.sub.2.sup.a (FIG. 14B), τ.sub.b (FIG. 14C) and S (FIG. 14D). Note that the error bars stand for the fitting errors in terms of standard deviations. In FIGS. 14A-14D, “ROI” means region of interest; and “μs” means microsecond.

[0042] FIGS. 15A-15D illustrate two internal references (colored vertical lines) comparisons between REF1 (red) and REF2 (blue), with the former derived from MA (θ≈55°) orientations and the latter from the fitted S.sub.0 (in logarithmic scale) distribution (FIG. 15A) and R.sub.2.sup.i distribution (FIG. 15B) when ω.sub.1=∞, without an REF1. The fitted R.sub.2.sup.a (FIG. 15C) and τ.sub.b (FIG. 15D) histogram comparisons incorporating an REF1 (red) or an REF2 (blue) when quantifying R.sub.1ρ dispersions. Note that these quantifications were performed on all the segmented ROIs in the deep femoral cartilage. In FIGS. 15A-15D, “ROI” means region of interest; and “μs” means microsecond.

[0043] FIGS. 16A-16F illustrate exemplary ROI-based parametric maps of R.sub.2.sup.i, R.sub.2.sup.a, τ.sub.b, S and R.sup.2 (FIGS. 16B-16F) derived from R.sub.1ρ dispersion from the third subject knee cartilage, with each superimposed on one T2W sagittal image (FIG. 16A). In FIGS. 16A-16F, “ROI” means region of interest; and “μs” means microsecond.

[0044] FIGS. 17A-17D illustrate fitted order parameter S histogram comparisons (FIGS. 17A and 17B) between two repeated scans, and similar plots (FIGS. 17C and 17D) for the synthetic (blue) and the measured (red) R1ρ (ω.sub.1/2π=500 Hz), in the deep femoral cartilage from the second (FIGS. 17A and 17C) and the third subject (FIGS. 17B and 17C). Note that the measured R.sub.1ρ was obtained using the standard R.sub.1ρ mapping method, while the synthetic one was derived from the fitted R.sub.1ρ dispersion model parameters. In FIGS. 17A-17D, “DZ” means deep zone.

[0045] FIGS. 18A-18D illustrate Bloch simulations for different SL performances subjected to non-uniform B.sub.0 and B.sub.1 field artifacts. The SL diagrams were given above the simulated z-component magnetization (M.sub.z), with α.sub.y, α.sub.−y, and β.sub.x, standing respectively for flip-down, flip-up and refocusing RF pulses and 4τ for TSL. In these diagrams, RF pulse phase was indicated by x (0°), y (90°), −x (180°) and −y (270°). Note that the standard and the proposed SL schemes (discussed in this work) are shown in FIGS. 18A and 18D, and B.sub.0 and B.sub.1 field inhomogeneities were respectively limited, i.e. Δω.sub.1/2π=[0, 250] (Hz) and Δω.sub.1/2π=[0, 1000] (Hz). In FIGS. 18A-18D, “SL” means spin-lock; and “TSL” means spin-lock time.

[0046] FIGS. 19A-19D illustrate simulated R.sub.1ρ-weighting (normalized) contour plots assuming τ.sub.b=100, 200, 300 and 150 (μs) as shown in FIGS. 19A, 19B, 19C, and 19D, respectively. Note that all these plots were calculated using R.sub.2.sup.i, =R.sub.2.sup.a=20 (1/s) except for that using R.sub.2.sup.i=15 (1/s) in FIG. 19D. In FIGS. 19A-19D, “ms” means millisecond; “TSL” means spin-lock time; and “μs” means microsecond.

[0047] FIG. 20 illustrates an exemplary computer system that may be used for analysis as described here and connected to a medical imaging system.

[0048] FIG. 21 illustrates a flow diagram of an exemplary method of analyzing ordered tissue to calculate an orientation-independent order parameter S that is sensitive to the microstructural integrity of cartilage.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0049] The present disclosure provides systems and methods for analyzing ordered tissue to calculate an orientation-independent order parameter S that is sensitive to the collagen microstructural integrity in cartilage.

[0050] This orientation-dependent order parameter S may be utilized to characterize the degeneration of ordered tissue, such as cartilage, in clinical settings. A theoretical framework for developing this orientation-independent order parameter S was formulated based on R.sub.1ρ dispersion coupled with an oversimplified molecular reorientation model, where anisotropic R.sub.2 (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.a(θ)) becomes proportional to correlation time τ.sub.b(θ) and an orientation-independent order parameter S can thus be established. This new methodology was corroborated on the publicly available orientation-dependent (θ=n*15°, n=0-6) R.sub.1ρ dispersion (ω.sub.1/2π=0, 0.25, 0.5. 1.0. 2.0 kHz) of bovine cartilage samples at 9.4T and R.sub.1ρ dispersion (ω.sub.1/2π=0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 kHz) on one live human knee at 3T.

[0051] The τ.sub.b(θ) derived from orientation-dependent R.sub.1ρ dispersion demonstrated a significantly high correlation (r=0.89+0.05, P<0.05) with the corresponding R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) on cartilage samples, and a moderate correlation (r=0.51, P<0.01) was found in human knee. The average order parameter S (10.sup.−3) from bovine cartilage was almost two times larger than that from human knee, i.e. 3.90±0.89 vs. 1.80±0.05.

[0052] The order parameters derived from R.sub.1ρ dispersion measurements are largely orientation-independent and thus lend strong support to the outlined theoretical framework. The promising results from this study could have great clinical implications in expanding the compositional MR imaging beyond its current applications.

[0053] The present disclosure further provides an efficient and robust R.sub.1ρ dispersion mapping of human knee cartilage using tailored spin-locking in an optimized 3D turbo-FLASH sequence.

[0054] That is, a new spin-lock (“SL”) method has been proposed for quantitative R.sub.1ρ dispersion of human knee articular cartilage (FIG. 9A), which is less prone to B.sub.0 and B.sub.1 field artifacts for a broad range of ω.sub.1/2π settings as demonstrated by Bloch simulations, phantom imaging, and in vivo experiments. The enhanced robustness of this new SL method is derived from the fully refocused prepared R.sub.1ρ magnetization (M.sub.prep) by two self-compensated refocusing pulses even when they are not exactly equal to 180°. Therefore, M.sub.prep from this new SL approach should become larger than those with previous methods when B.sub.1 field is not uniform.

[0055] The differently prepared M.sub.prep evolution towards steady-state during turbo-FLASH imaging readout can be translated into a varying k-space filtering effect, resulting in a biased R.sub.1ρ. An image will be completely free of such systematic errors only if the k-space filter remains constant for all k-space lines. One approach to achieving this goal is to tailor M.sub.prep into a narrow range; however, this reduced dynamic range in M.sub.prep could inevitably introduce additional uncertainty in determining R.sub.1ρ when fitting the near constant R.sub.1ρ-weighting to an exponential relaxation decay model.

[0056] In particular, the present disclosure provides an efficient and robust R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol for human knee cartilage clinical studies. Specifically, the present disclosure provides a novel method to prepare a near constant M.sub.prep by tailoring both SL RF duration (TSL) and ω.sub.1/2π, and the limited dynamic range in M.sub.prep will be expanded by exploiting extra information derived from the magic angle (MA) location or when ω.sub.1/2π=∞. Hence, the present disclosure provides an efficient and robust method for quantitative R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging of human knee articular cartilage. Advantageously, this method allows comparable image quality to be obtained with about a 30% reduction in scan time compared to standard R.sub.1ρ mapping.

Systems and Methods for Analyzing Ordered Tissue to Calculate an Orientation-Independent Order Parameter S that is Sensitive to the Collagen Microstructural Integrity in Cartilage

Theory

[0057] The transverse relaxation R.sub.2 of water proton in cartilage is largely induced by a dominant intramolecular dipolar interaction (R.sub.2.sup.dd) and an increasing chemical exchange effect (R.sub.2.sup.ex) as the static magnetic field B.sub.0 increases. Specifically, R.sub.2.sup.dd stems from preferentially orientated water in collagen, where the bound water is fixed by two hydrogen bonds connecting with neighboring chains in triple-helix interstices. As a result, an effective <H—H> dipolar interaction vector tends to align along the principal axis of collagen fibers as shown in FIG. 1A, which was revealed by a molecular dynamics simulation study on a hydrated collagen model peptide. On the other hand, the secondary R.sub.2.sup.ex is typically attributed to a fast chemical exchange between hydroxyl (—OH) protons in bulk water and in PG (mostly glycosaminoglycan, GAG) with different chemical shifts (Δω≈1 ppm). Taking together, R.sub.2 can be quantified by three characteristic contributions as expressed in EQUATION 1, where R.sub.2.sup.dd has been divided into an isotropic R.sub.2.sup.i and an anisotropic R.sub.2.sup.a(θ).

[0058] These three contributions to R.sub.2 can be categorized into different two groups, depending on their orientation dependences or the time scales of water-protein interactions. For instance, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) is orientation-dependent in contrast to R.sub.2.sup.i and R.sub.2.sup.ex. In the meantime, R.sub.2.sup.ex and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) are only sensitive to slow time scale interactions and thus can be suppressed in R.sub.1ρ measurements depending on the spin-lock RF strength (ω.sub.1) and the relevant correlation time (τ.sub.b) and chemical exchange time (τ.sub.ex) for CA− and GAG− water interactions as given in EQUATION 2.

[00005]$\begin{array}{cc}{R}_2=R_2^i+R_2^a\left(\theta \right)+R_2^{ex}& \left(1\right)\\ R_{1\rho }=R_2^i+\frac{R_2^a\left(\theta \right)}{1+4{\omega }_1^2{\tau }_b^2}+\frac{R_2^{ex}}{1+4{\omega }_1^2{\tau }_{ex}^2}& \left(2\right)\end{array}$

[0059] Note, τ.sub.ex.sup.−1 is redefined here as the average, instead of the sum, of the rate constants of the forward (k.sub.AB) and reverse (k.sub.BA) reactions. Apparently, R.sub.1ρ will turn respectively into R.sub.2 or R.sub.2.sup.i when ω.sub.1 is absent or sufficiently strong (i.e. ω.sub.1>>τ.sub.b.sup.−1 and τ.sub.ex.sup.−).

[0060] When it becomes significant, R.sub.2.sup.ex can be further separated from R.sub.2.sup.dd based on either the former's B.sub.0.sup.2 dependence or the latter's orientation dependence. R.sub.2.sup.ex is normally quantified with p.sub.Ap.sub.BΔω.sup.2(2π.sub.ex), with p.sub.A/B and Δω representing molecular fractions and an angular chemical shift difference in and between A (—OH in water) and B (—OH in GAG) states. On the other hand, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) can be written as R.sub.2.sup.a3 cos.sup.2 θ−1.sup.2/4, with an angle θ formed between B.sub.0 (+Z) and an effective residual dipolar interaction vector ({right arrow over (OA)}) along a principal axis ({right arrow over (n)}) in collagen fibers as depicted in FIG. 1B. By comparing R.sub.2 or R.sub.1ρ measured at two different B.sub.0 (e.g. 3T vs. 7T), R.sub.2.sup.ex can be readily separated because R.sub.2.sup.dd is basically independent of B.sub.0. Alternatively, if multiple orientation-dependent R.sub.2 measurements are available at one B.sub.0, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) can be removed first from R.sub.2 using EQUATION 1 and R.sub.2.sup.ex can then be detached further from R.sub.2.sup.i by a specific R.sub.1ρ dispersion (EQUATION 2) at the magic angle orientations where R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) becomes zero. It is worth noting that R.sub.2.sup.ex could only become relevant at higher magnetic fields (B.sub.0>3T) or around the locations with R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) approaching zero such as in the cartilage transitional zone or close to the magic angle orientations for collagen fibers.

[0061] Regarding the water-CA interactions responsible for R.sub.2.sup.a(θ), it seems more realistic and revealing to characterize {right arrow over (OA)} in a dynamic picture using an axially symmetric molecular reorientation model as shown in FIG. 1C, where {right arrow over (OA)} rapidly rotates about a symmetric axis {right arrow over (n)} at an angle of β, and {right arrow over (n)} makes an angle of α with B.sub.0. Because of this rapid molecular reorientation with a characteristic small correlation time τ.sub.∥, the orientation-dependent term 3 cos.sup.2 θ−1 in R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) will be mathematically transformed into 3 cos.sup.2 β−1(3 cos.sup.2 α−1)/2, where angle brackets . . . indicate a time or an ensemble average. As a result, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) can be quantified by two different terms that are grouped in two pairs of curly brackets in EQUATION 3.

[00006]$\begin{array}{cc}{R}_2^a\left(\theta \right)=\left\{\frac{3}{2}{\left(d\frac{.Math.3{\cos }^2\beta -1.Math.}{2}\right)}^2\right\}\left\{{\left(\frac{1-3{\cos }^2\alpha }{2}\right)}^2{\tau }_{\perp }\right\}& \left(3\right)\end{array}$

[0062] The first term contains a scaled dipolar interaction constant Sd, with a scaling factor S defined as 3 cos.sup.2 β−1/2 and d a constant of √{square root over (3/10)}(μ.sub.0/4π) (γ.sup.2hr.sup.−3), e.g. d=1.028*10.sup.5 (s.sup.−1) with a distance r of 1.59 (Å) between two proton nuclei in water. In literature, S was referred to as an order parameter—a measure of water molecular reorientation restrictions. For instance, S could have become zero had the bound water been orientated randomly in collagen. The second term is directly related to the well-known magic angle effect, where the correlation time τ.sub.⊥ characterizes a much slower molecular reorientation (i.e. τ.sub.⊥>>τ.sub.∥) about an axis perpendicular to {right arrow over (n)}, and is considered to be associated with different processes of breaking and reforming the hydrogen bonds mediated by the bound water in collagen triple-helix interstices. For this oversimplified model, only one correlation time τ.sub.⊥ is adequate to characterize the bound water anisotropic molecular motion.

[0063] It is noteworthy that EQUATION 3 can be derived by simplifying a general form of anisotropic R.sub.2 equation by assuming an axially symmetric model for a preferential water orientation in collagen. It is also worth pointing out that the rotational axis ({right arrow over (n)}) relative to B.sub.0 (i.e. α) could be arbitrarily manipulated; however, the intrinsic bound water's bonding property β or S should not be altered in the orientation-dependent MR relaxation studies on cartilage. This observation basically suggests that R.sub.2.sup.a(α) should be proportional to τ.sub.b(α) regardless of collagen orientations, with τ.sub.b(α) representing τ.sub.⊥(1−3 cos.sup.2 α).sup.2/4. As a result, an orientation-independent order parameter S can be calculated using EQUATION 4 if R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) could be derived from R.sub.1ρ relaxation dispersion.

[00007]$\begin{array}{cc}S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3d^2}\frac{R_2^a\left(\alpha \right)}{{\tau }_b\left(\alpha \right)}}& \left(4\right)\end{array}$

[0064] The uncertainty in S can also be determined if the measurement errors in R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) are available using the standard error propagation formulas. Note, the different orientation symbol (α vs. θ) is irrelevant in EQUATION 4.

Methods

MRI Acquisition

[0065] Seven orientation-dependent R.sub.2(θ) and standard R.sub.1ρ (θ, ω.sub.1) dispersion (θ≈n*15°, n=0-6; ω.sub.1/2π=0.25. 0.5. 1.0. 2.0 kHz) measurements on bovine patellar cartilage-bone samples (n=4) were performed at 9.4T by others, and the corresponding relaxation depth-profiles were publicly available and used in this study. More details can be found in the original publication.

[0066] One human volunteer's right knee was studied with R.sub.1ρ (1/T1ρ) dispersion in the sagittal plane using a 16-ch T/R knee coil on a research-dedicated Philips 3T MR scanner. 3D T1ρ-weighed images with varying spin-lock (a) times (TSL=1, 10, 20, 30 and 40 ms) were acquired with a SL-prepared T1-enhanced 3D TFE pulse sequence, where five SL RF pulse strengths (ω.sub.1/2π=0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 kHz) were used for different R.sub.1ρ mappings. The acquired voxel size was 0.40*0.40*3.00 mm.sup.3 and interpolated to 0.24*0.24*3.00 mm.sup.3 in the final reconstructed images. Total scan duration was about 45 minutes.

Rip Dispersion Modeling

Bovine Patellar Cartilage

[0067] The orientation-depth maps of R.sub.2(θ) and R.sub.1ρ(θ, ω.sub.1) were reproduced using a slightly modified matlab script provided in the original study, with a linear interpolation replaced by a spline version to avoid undefined profiles on the map edges. This study focused only on the deep cartilage where average relaxation rates were calculated for further analysis. The deep zone was defined within a normalized depth range between 40% and 80% from the articular surface.

[0068] The chemical exchange contribution (R.sub.2.sup.ex) was first separated based on the orientation-dependence of R.sub.2(θ) and the specific dispersion of R.sub.1ρ(θ.sub.MA, ω.sub.1). In modeling R.sub.2(θ), the sample orientation θ was allowed to float within a limited range of [−30°, 30°] to account for the potential errors in positioning samples and the actual orientation deviations of collagen fibers, Then, R.sub.1ρ (θ, ω.sub.1), excluding R.sub.2.sup.ex, was fitted to a function of A+R.sub.2.sup.a(θ)/(1+4ω.sub.1.sup.2τ.sub.b.sup.2(θ)) for different θ, where A, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) and τ.sub.b(θ) were model parameters. Subsequently, S was derived from each pair of the fitted R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) and τ.sub.b(θ) at different orientation B not close to B.sub.MA (i.e. <50° or 35°). Finally, average S and its standard deviation for each bovine patellar sample were calculated.

[0069] TABLE 1 tabulates the categorized R.sub.2 absolute (1/s) and relative (%) relaxation rates, the fitted magic angles θ.sub.MA, τ.sub.ex (μs), the average R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) and the average τ.sub.b in terms of the data ellipse centroids and S for each sample. The model parameter ranges were constrained in in nonlinear χ.sup.2-based curve-fittings: R.sub.2.sup.a(θ)=[0, 300] (1/s); R.sub.2.sup.i and R.sub.2.sup.ex=[0, 30] (1/s); τ.sub.ex and τ.sub.b=[10.sup.1, 10.sup.3] (μs). If the determined model parameters were equal to the predefined limits or their relative errors were large than 100%, they had been excluded for further analysis.

Human Knee Cartilage

[0070] 3D R.sub.1ρ-weighted images were first co-registered following an established protocol, and R.sub.1ρ pixel maps with different ω.sub.1/2π were produced by curve-fittings to a simple exponential decay model (two parameters). Next, the angular and radial segmentations were performed on the femoral, tibial and patellar cartilage and ROI-based three parameters (R.sub.2.sup.i, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) and τ.sub.b(θ)) were fitted using EQUATION 2 with R.sub.2.sup.ex set to zero, and average order parameter S was reported for all three cartilages in TABLE 2 including the descriptive statistics for varying R.sub.1ρ dispersion and modeling parameters as well. As described above, the ranges of the model parameters for R.sub.1ρ dispersion and the criteria in selecting the accepted fitted parameters were the same as those used in bovine cartilage samples.

Statistical Analysis

[0071] The differences and correlations between any two relaxation metrics were quantified using the Student's paired t-test (a two-tail distribution) and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), with the statistical significance considered at P<0.05. Inter-group comparisons were evaluated using box-and-whisker plots and histograms, and the potential correlations between any two parameters were visualized in scatterplots with 95% confidence level data ellipses overlaid. All measurements are shown as mean±SD unless stated otherwise. All image and data analysis were performed using in-house software developed in IDL 8.5 (Exelis Visual Information Solutions, Boulder, Colo.).

Results

Bovine Patellar Cartilage

[0072] FIG. 2 reproduces the original orientation-dependent relaxations T.sub.2 (1/R.sub.2) and T.sub.1ρ (1/R.sub.1ρ) depth-profiles without (A) and with a spin-lock (SL) RF (ω.sub.1/2π=2000 Hz) (B) from one bovine cartilage sample (B1S2). The magic angle effect can be easily appreciated in the deep zone when the sample orientated near 60° relative to B.sub.0 (A); however, this intrinsic R.sub.2 anisotropy was mostly suppressed when using a stronger SL RF in R.sub.1ρ measurements (B).

[0073] FIG. 3 provides an example of R.sub.2 (1/s) partition and R.sub.1ρ (1/s) dispersion for the same sample B1S2. Specifically, R.sub.2 was separated into an anisotropic R.sub.2.sup.a (147.5±2.4) and an isotropic part composed of R.sub.2.sup.i and R.sub.2.sup.ex (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.i+R.sub.2.sup.ex=16.0±0.4) by an orientation dependence fitting (red solid line) (A), with the fitted magic angle θ.sub.MA equal to 59.6±0.3° . In this subplot, two different orientation-dependent R.sub.1ρ relaxation profiles with ω.sub.1/2π of 0.25 (green solid line) and 2.0 kHz (blue solid line) were also included.

[0074] To further separate R.sub.2.sup.ex from R.sub.2.sup.i, a particular R.sub.1ρ dispersion fitting was carried out at θ.sub.MA (C), resulting in the fitted R.sub.2.sup.i of 10.4±0.2 (1/s), R.sub.2.sup.ex of 5.6±0.2 (1/s) and τ.sub.ex of 161.7±12.9 (μs), respectively. A typical modeling of R.sub.1ρ dispersion (θ=20°), excluding R.sub.2.sup.ex, is also presented (B) with the fitted R.sub.2.sup.i of 11.3±3.3 (1/s), R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) of 86.3±5.3 (1/s) and τ.sub.b(θ) of 459.0±28.7 (μs), respectively. These exemplary analyses indicate that an anisotropic R.sub.2.sup.a was the dominant (90%) contribution to R.sub.2, and R.sub.1ρ dispersion was orientation-dependent.

[0075] TABLE 1 summarizes the average R.sub.2 partitions, R.sub.1ρ dispersion modeling parameters, average τ.sub.b(θ) and average R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) and the derived order parameter S for each of four samples, showing that the chemical exchange effect (R.sub.2.sup.ex) contributed about 3% to R.sub.2 and the determined magic angle θ.sub.MA (64.4±8.9°) deviated from an assumed 54.7°. More importantly, the derived τ.sub.b(θ) demonstrated a significantly high correlation (r=0.89+0.05, P<0.05) with the corresponding R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) as predicated despite varying linear relationships for different samples as shown in FIG. 4A. As a result, the derived average order parameters S (10.sup.−3) varied from 3.15±0.28 (B1S2) to 5.08±0.24 (B1S3) as shown in the box-and-whisker diagrams in FIG. 4B and listed in TABLE 1.

Human Knee Cartilage

[0076] FIG. 5B presents three ROI-based (indicated by colored arrows) R.sub.1ρ dispersions (indicated by colored solid lines) in the femoral (red), tibial (green) and patellar (blue) cartilage on one R.sub.1ρ-weighted image as shown in FIG. 5A. The observed largest and the smallest R.sub.2 (ω.sub.1/2π=0) from the tibial and the femoral cartilage were in good agreement with the theoretical predication, as the deep collagen fibers within these two ROIs were nearly parallel and at the magic angle to B.sub.0.

[0077] FIG. 6 shows histogram comparisons of the measured and the modeled R.sub.1ρ dispersions, with ω.sub.1/2π=125 Hz (A), 500 Hz (B) and 1000 Hz (C) and fitted R.sub.2.sup.i (D), τ.sub.b (E) and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) (F) in the femoral (red), tibial (green) and patellar (blue) cartilage of whole human knee, and the corresponding descriptive statistics of these presented data are tabulated in TABLE 2. As the spin-lock RF strength increased from 125 to 1000 Hz, the absolute values (1/s) and anisotropies of R.sub.1ρ decreased from 19.4±5.7 to 13.5±3.4 in the femoral (red solid lines), from 19.0±3.3 to 14.1±1.7 (green dash-dot lines) in the tibial and from 16.9±3.4 to 11.4±1.6 (blue dashed lines) in the patellar cartilage, as indicated by the left shifted and narrowed histograms (A-C). On the other hand, the fitted R.sub.2.sup.i became clustered within limited ranges (D) and the derived τ.sub.b were positively correlated (r=0.51, P<0.01) with R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) in all three cartilages (E-F).

[0078] FIG. 7 presents a scatterplot (A) between the fitted orientation-dependent τ.sub.b and R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) for the femoral (red circles), tibial (green squares) and patellar (blue triangles) cartilage, and a box-and-whisker diagram for the derived order parameters S (B) for each cartilage in human knee. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the measured and the modeled R.sub.1ρ dispersions is listed in TABLE 2. In general, the estimated R.sub.2.sup.i (1/s) was comparable (i.e. ˜10.8) in all cartilages; more importantly, the derived average order parameters S (10.sup.−3) for three different cartilage was similar (i.e. ˜1.84) in spite of varied R.sub.2 relaxation anisotropies.

Discussion

General Comment

[0079] In the present disclosure, a theoretical framework to derive an orientation-independent order parameter S for the bound water in collagen through R.sub.1ρ dispersion is provided and corroborated on bovine patellar cartilage samples at 9.4T and one live human knee at 3T. The proposed order parameter S can be considered as an intrinsic MR probe reflecting the microstructural integrity of highly organized tissues. Since the developed method is not only limited to cartilage, it could be extended to other structured tissues in clinical studies. For example, R.sub.1ρ dispersion has been used for characterizing myocardial fibrosis and the relaxation mechanisms underlying the proposed novel non-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) index could be elucidated if using the similar approaches as discussed in the present disclosure.

[0080] The present disclosure describes the first attempt to separate the magic angle effect from MR relaxation measurements and yet to retain the most relevant water bonding information in highly organized tissue. To date, the compositional MR relaxation study on ordered tissue was only useful for longitudinal investigations in which the magic angle effect would be automatically decoupled if the tissue at the same location is considered. With the proposed method, however, it is possible to make the reliable diagnosis on the focal degenerative changes relative to other intact cartilage on the same knee, which could have a great impact on the diagnosis of early cartilage degeneration in clinical practice.

Anisotropic Molecular Reorientation

[0081] Five different correlation times are generally required to adequately characterize an anisotropic molecular motion according to the classical NMR relaxation theory; however, the number of these correlation times can be reduced to three if an axially symmetric model is assumed. In this scenario, the three pertinent correlation times will be constructed from two independent ones (e.g. τ.sub.∥ and τ.sub.⊥) that characterize the molecular reorientations about and perpendicular to the axially symmetric rotational axis. If an additional assumption is made such that τ.sub.⊥>>τ.sub.∥, as discussed in the present disclosure, the only relevant correlation time will be the much slower one (τ.sub.⊥); in other words, an anisotropic molecular reorientation with an oversimplified axially symmetric model can be treated as a conventional isotropic molecular rotation characterized with a large effective correlation time.

[0082] Accordingly, R.sub.2 and R.sub.1ρ will become sensitive to these slow time scale molecular interactions between water and collagen but not for R.sub.1, which depends only on fast time scale molecular motions. It cannot be stressed enough that R.sub.2 (ω.sub.1/2π=0) is the most sensitive metric for the slow time scale interactions given various R.sub.1ρ relaxation dispersions. Recently, a composite relaxation R.sub.2-R.sub.1ρ was proposed as an early predictor of cartilage lesion progression, which simply states that R.sub.2 is more sensitive than R.sub.1ρ regardless of the exact relaxation mechanism for the slow time scale molecular interactions. It is also worth mentioning that the relative change rather than the absolute value of R.sub.1ρ should be used to characterize cartilage degeneration. This interpretation differs from some previous reports that R.sub.1ρ itself was considered as an important MR biomarker for early cartilage degeneration.

An ARCADE Model for Collagen Fibers

[0083] The collagen fibers in articular cartilage are commonly categorized into a superficial (parallel), a transitional (arcading) and a deep (perpendicular) zone based on the preferential direction of the fibers relative to cartilage surface. Had the cartilage surface been perpendicular to B.sub.0 and the collagen fibers in the deep zone been perpendicular to the cartilage surface, the minimum R.sub.2 should have been detected at the magic angle θ.sub.MA of 54.7°. However, an average θ.sub.MA estimated in this study was offset by about 10° from the expected value. These unexpected observations could be partially explained by either that the cartilage surface was not exactly perpendicular to B.sub.0 or that the collagen fibers were not exactly perpendicular to the cartilage surface. In either case, the routine experimental setup for relaxation measurements would become tedious if consistent results are expected from repeated scans. Nevertheless, the developed method provided in the present disclosure could make such relaxation studies less demanding as the orientation-dependent factor has been taken out of the equation in the proposed order parameter S.

Order Parameters from Normal Cartilage

[0084] In this study, the derived S from bovine patellar cartilage samples had demonstrated both intra- and inter-sample variabilities (FIG. 4B). For a particular sample, S could be subjected to a limited number of orientation-dependent measurements or an insufficient signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) when close to θ.sub.MA. As stated in the original paper, the exact age of the animals was not known and thus the age-dependent factor might have contributed to the altered collagen structures revealed by various S among samples. On the other hand, the hydration differences in prepared samples could lead to various water bonding properties and thus altered order parameters S. In his pioneering paper, Berendsen clearly demonstrated that water bonding to collagen (from bovine Achilles tendon), in terms of water proton resonance doublet splitting, depended heavily on the hydration level, with S (10.sup.−3) decreased approximately from 45 to 26 when the relative humility (hydration) increased from 32% to 90%.

[0085] It is not surprising that S could be indicative of varying biomechanical properties for different cartilage, given the molecular basis of the bound water in collagen. For instance, S from an asymptomatic human knee cartilage was estimated to about 2.0*10.sup.−3 (FIG. 7B), compared to about 4.0*10.sup.−3(FIG. 4B) in bovine knee patellar cartilage samples in this study. However, these two order parameters S were much smaller than that obtained from the hydrated bovine Achilles tendon (˜35.0*10.sup.−3 at ˜25% hydration) as compared in FIG. 8A.

Order Parameters from Modified and OA Cartilage

[0086] For the very reason underlying the water bonding, the proposed order parameters could be an essential MR biomarker for early cartilage degeneration. This potential utility was documented with one R.sub.1ρ dispersion study at 9.4T on both enzymatically modified bovine patellar cartilage samples and human tibial cartilages with early and advanced OA. In that work, the derived correlation times τ.sub.b was investigated and suggested as a fundamental biophysical MRI contrast. As explained in the present disclosure, τ.sub.b and anisotropic R.sub.2 are not only correlated with each other but also dependent on the same geometric factor.

[0087] As a result, the corresponding order parameters S could be estimated for human OA cartilage and biochemically degraded bovine cartilage samples as shown in FIG. 8, where S (10.sup.−3) from early OA was larger (i.e. 2.36>1.64) than that from advanced OA samples (B), and decreased sequentially from the control (CNT=2.02) to the GAG− depleted (GAG−=1.64) to the collagen-depleted (CA−=1.47) samples (C). These order parameters S were derived according to the reported τ.sub.b (μs) and an estimated R.sub.2.sup.a (1/s) from the graphs for the whole (100%) depth cartilage, e.g. [R.sub.2.sup.a, τ.sub.b]=[38, 432] and [27, 634] for early and advanced OA samples; [20, 310], [16, 374] and [12, 350] for CNT, GAG− and CA− samples. If the superficial zone (5% depth) was considered, the observed S trend would be even more clear; specifically, S (10.sup.−3) would become 1.82 vs.1.16 for early and advanced OA, and 1.16 vs. 1.10 vs. 0.72 for CNT, GAG− and CA− samples. These ex vivo results strongly support the argument that the proposed order parameters S could be a promising MR biomarker for the integrity of the collagen microstructure in cartilage.

Future Work

[0088] A judicious design for an efficient R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging is conceivable in future research, which can not only reduce potential involuntary motion artifacts but also facilitate the implementation of the proposed method into a routine clinical imaging protocol. One possible approach could be a constant time R.sub.1ρ dispersion in which the varied parameter would be a spin-lock RF amplitude instead of its duration. Once an efficient R.sub.1ρ dispersion protocol becomes available, other highly organized tissues (e.g. myocardium) could be explored to elucidate the relevant relaxation mechanism in the diseased state (e.g. fibrosis) and thus the specific structural protein could be clinically investigated.

Conclusion

[0089] The results from applying this new concept to both ex vivo and in vivo articular cartilage studies demonstrate that an orientation-independent order parameter S that is sensitive to the microstructural integrity of highly ordered tissues can be established from R.sub.1ρ dispersion. It is foreseen that the developed unique approach will broaden the current spectrum of the compositional MR imaging applications in clinical practice.

Efficient and Robust R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Mapping of Human Knee Cartilage Using Tailored Spin-Locking in an Optimized 3D Turbo-FLASH Sequence

Methods

Spin-Lock and Turbo-FLASH Sequence

A Fully-Refocused Spin-Lock Preparation

[0090] As shown in FIGS. 9A and 18D, the double refocusing RF pulses (β) in the proposed SL scheme, unlike none or only one in previous methods (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 18A-C), can fully refocus the chemical shift (Δω.sub.0) artifacts originated from non-uniform B.sub.0 even when β is not exactly equal to 180° due to B.sub.1 inhomogeneity. Essentially, the proposed scheme was a fully-refocused hybrid-echo approach, comprising two pairs of antiphase rotary-echo pulses with each flanking one refocusing pulse. The previous methods discussed here included the rotary-echo approach to mitigating B.sub.1 artifacts (e.g., as shown in FIG. 18A), a combined rotary-and spin-echo (i.e. hybrid-echo) scheme (e.g., as shown in FIG. 18B) for removing both B.sub.0 and B.sub.1 artifacts when using a lower ω.sub.1/2π (e.g. 27 Hz) at 3T, and a modified hybrid-echo method (see FIG. 18C) for a higher ω.sub.1/2π (e.g. 1 kHz) at 7T.

[0091] Bloch simulations using various rotation matrices were carried out to evaluate the improved SL performance using a relatively broad range of ω.sub.1 and Δω.sub.0 suitable for human knee cartilage imaging at 3T. Specifically, ω.sub.1/2π increased evenly from 0 to 1000 Hz and Δω.sub.0/2π from 0 to 250 Hz in 101 steps to simulate spin dynamics starting from an equilibrium state. Since only the longitudinal component of the prepared magnetizations will be mapped out by the FLASH imaging sequence, the transverse components were thus excluded for further considerations. In these simulations, the nominal flip angle (FA) α and β were scaled down 90% to mimic inhomogeneity reported for human knee cartilage imaging at 3T. Also, any relaxation effects during RF flipping, refocusing and SL were not considered, i.e. α and β were treated as hard pulses.

An Optimal FA for Turbo-FLASH Sequence

[0092] The steady-state longitudinal magnetization (M.sub.ss) from magnetization-prepared spoiled FLASH sequence does not depend on an initial condition (M.sub.prep), but rather is a function of the constant excitation FA of α.sub.0, repetition time TR, and longitudinal relaxation time constant, T.sub.1, of the tissue, as shown by EQUATION 5,

[00008]$\begin{array}{cc}{M}_{\mathrm{SS}}=M_0\frac{\left(1-E_1\right)}{\left(1-E_1\cos {\alpha }_0\right)}& \left(5\right)\end{array}$

[0093] where M.sub.0 is the magnetization in an equilibrium state, and E.sub.1=exp (−TR/T1). The transient magnetization (M.sub.N) immediately before an excitation RF pulse, α.sub.N, could be written as EQUATION 6,

M.sub.N=M.sub.SS+(M.sub.prep−M.sub.SS)(E.sub.1 cos α.sub.0).sup.N   (6)

[0094] where M.sub.prep is the prepared R.sub.1ρ-weighted magnetization (normalized), ranging potentially from −1 to 1 depending on the phase of the flip-back RF pulse as well as TSL and ω.sub.1/2π. Hence, an average of the measurable magnetization (M) could be calculated as the sum per shot (or segmentation), i.e. as a function of α.sub.0,

M={sin α.sub.0/(N−1)}Σ.sub.0.sup.N−1M.sub.N   (7)

[0095] Consequently, an optimal α.sub.0 for each M.sub.prep could be identified given the knowledge of N, TR and T.sub.1. In this work, simulations were performed with the following parameters: TR=6.8 ms and T.sub.1=1240 ms, α.sub.0 ranging from 0° to 24° and M.sub.prep from 0 to 100% for each N (i.e. 32, 64, 96, 128). In vivo experiments were conducted on the first subject's left knee to validate the predicted optimal FA (see below).

Quantitative R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Imaging

Tailored Constant R.SUB.1ρ Weighting

[0096] The signal strength in R.sub.1ρ-weighted cartilage image could be expressed by EQUATIONS 8-9, assuming a negligible chemical exchange contribution to R.sub.1ρ at 3T.

[00009]$\begin{array}{cc}S\left(T\mathrm{SL},{\omega }_1\right)=S_0\exp \left(-R_{1\rho }*\mathrm{TSL}\right)& \left(8\right)\\ R_{1\rho }=R_2^i+\frac{R_2^a\left(\theta \right)}{1+4{\omega }_1^2{\tau }_b^2}& \left(9\right)\end{array}$

[0097] Here, R.sub.2.sup.i stands for a non-specific isotropic relaxation component, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) for a specific anisotropic contribution and τ.sub.b for the corresponding slow (˜μs-ms) reorientation correlation time for those motion-restricted water molecules in collagen. Generally, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) is written as R.sub.2.sup.a3 cos.sup.2 θ−1.sup.2/4, with θ an angle between the collagen fiber direction and B.sub.0; thus, R.sub.2.sup.a(θ) will become zero when θ is at the MA of 55°.

[0098] The prepared SL magnetization, M.sub.prep=S(TSL, ω.sub.1)/S.sub.0, is determined by the user-defined parameters TSL and ω.sub.1; thus, a near constant M.sub.prep could be generated by imultaneously increasing or decreasing both parameters, given that other related parameters (R.sub.2.sup.i, R.sub.2.sup.a and τ.sub.b) are constant. Eight different combinations of TSL and ω.sub.1 values for three M.sub.prep preparations (i.e. 50%, 60% and 70%) were listed in TABLE 3, with an assumption of R.sub.2.sup.i=R.sub.2.sup.a=20 (1/s) and τ.sub.b=300 (μs).

[0099] According to EQUATION 9, R.sub.1ρ will become R.sub.2.sup.i when θ=55° or ω.sub.1=∞. This fact was exploited to increase the dynamic range for the constant M.sub.prep preparation, where the signal derived with θ=55 could be considered as that with ω.sub.1=∞. This extra information is referred to as an internal reference (REF), i.e. REF1 for θ=55 and REF2 for ω.sub.1=∞.

Simulated Quantitative R.sub.1ρ Dispersion with Noise

[0100] Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of R.sub.1ρ dispersion quantification with and without an REF. An R.sub.1ρ dispersion profile was generated based on EQUATIONS 8-9 following the protocols listed in TABLE 3, with S.sub.0=100, R.sub.2.sup.i=R.sub.2.sup.a=20 (1/s), TSL ranging from 9 to 32 ms, ω.sub.1/2π from 0 to 1000 Hz and τ.sub.b=300 (μs). As shown before (5), an orientation-independent order parameter S (10.sup.−3) can be determined given the values of R.sub.2.sup.a and τ.sub.b, and it was 2.052 herein when using a constant K of 1.05610.sup.10 (s.sup.−2) in S=√{square root over ((R.sub.2.sup.a/τ.sub.b)(1/1.5K))}.

[0101] Next, the simulated data were contaminated with Gaussian noise leading to 9 signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) from 20 to 100. Here, the SNR was defined as S.sub.0/σ, with σ standing for the standard deviation (SD) of the Gaussian noise. These defined noises were generated from normally distributed random numbers with zero mean and different variance depending on SNR. The noisy R.sub.1ρ dispersion profile was generated 1000 times for each SNR with M.sub.prep=50%, 60%, 70%, respectively. An REF data were calculated for each of eight TSL values with ω.sub.1=∞. Thus, each M.sub.prep group would have had 16 different R.sub.1ρ-weighted datasets had the REF data been used. In order to assess to what extent a biased REF could have compromised R.sub.1ρ dispersion quantification in a realistic scenario, a noiseless dataset was prepared with S.sub.0=100, R.sub.2.sup.i=15 (1/s), R.sub.2.sup.a=20 (1/s) and τ.sub.b=200, and then an erroneous REF was created using a biased R.sub.2.sup.i with a relative uncertainty (ΔR.sub.2.sup.i) ranging from −100% to +100%.

[0102] From these 1000 simulations, the mean and SD of each of the fitted R.sub.1ρ dispersion parameters were calculated. The accuracies of these estimated parameters were evaluated in terms of the root mean square error (RMSE) defined by

√{square root over (Σ.sub.i=0.sup.j{(P.sub.fit.sup.i−P.sub.true)/P.sub.true}.sup.2/(j−1))}*100%

[0103] where P.sub.fit.sup.i and P.sub.true were the fitted and the true (input) values, and j was 1000 in this study. Here, the SD of the fit was considered as the fitting precision.

In Vivo MR Imaging

[0104] Three consented volunteers part of an IRB-approved clinical study evaluating post-traumatic OA after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgical reconstruction were recruited and their asymptomatic knees were investigated using the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol (see below). The first subject had a bilateral knee scanned using M.sub.prep of 50%, 60% and 70%, while the second and the third subjects only had a single knee imaged using M.sub.prep of 60%. In addition, several extra R.sub.1ρ imaging scans (see below) were collected to confirm the predicted optimal FA, and to compare the derived R.sub.1ρ values with those reported in the literature. Particularly, the second and the third subjects had their knees re-imaged 3 months later using both the developed (i.e. improved) R.sub.1ρ dispersion and standard (i.e. original) R.sub.1ρ mapping protocols.

Quantitative R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Imaging Protocol

[0105] Eight constant R.sub.1ρ-weighted images for each of three M.sub.prep preparations were acquired with an optimized 3D turbo-FLASH sequence (see FIGS. 9A-9B) in which the tailored TSL and ω.sub.1 values can be found in TABLE 3. The other relevant acquisition parameters were as follows: SL 90°/180° RF durations=0.25/0.5 (ms); FOV=130*130*96 (mm.sup.3); acquired voxel size=0.6*0.6*3.0 (mm.sup.3); number of slices=32; Compressed SENSE factor=2.5; fat suppression=“binomial (1-2-1) pulses”. The key transient field-echo (TFE or FLASH) parameters were as follows: number of profiles N=64; TR/TE=6.8/3.5 (ms); FA=13°; shot interval (T.sub.seg)=2000 (ms); number of shots (or segments)=34; profile order=“low-high”; turbo direction=“radial”; CENTRA (spiral)=“yes”. Each R.sub.1ρ-weighted 3D dataset took 1:09 minutes, and a total scan time was 9.2 minutes per M.sub.prep.

Standard R.SUB.1ρ Mapping Protocol

[0106] The acquisition parameters different from those listed above are as follows: ω.sub.1/2π=500 (Hz); TSL=1, 10, 20, 30, 40 (ms); SL method =“rotary-echo” (see FIG. 18A); acquired voxel size=0.4*0.4*3.0 (mm.sup.3); TR/TE=12/6.1 (ms); FA=10°, number of shots=52. This protocol took 1:45 minutes to collect each R.sub.1ρ-weighted 3D dataset, and a total scan time was 8.75 minutes.

Comparison of R.sub.1ρ-Weighted Images with Different FA

[0107] One R.sub.1τ-weighted scan (TSL=9 ms, ω.sub.1=0) from the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion protocol was repeated with FA of 9°, 11°, 15° and 17° on the first subject's left knee in order to compare with that from an optimum 13°.

Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)

[0108] The SNR of the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging was not measured in this study, but it was inferred from the previously acquired five repeated datasets (TSL=1 ms, ω.sub.1/2π=0) using the preliminary R.sub.1ρ dispersion protocol based on the standard mapping as aforementioned. The signal mean and SD from each of segmented ROIs in those R.sub.1ρ-weighted images were calculated and an average SNR was thus assessed respectively for the femoral, tibial and patellar cartilage compartments.

In Vivo R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Data Analysis

[0109] The measured R.sub.1ρ-weighted data were fitted to EQUATIONS 8-9 using a free nonlinear curve fitting IDL script based on the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (http://purl.com/net/mpfit). Specifically, there were two independent variables (TSL and ω.sub.1) and four model parameters (S0, R.sub.2.sup.i, R.sub.2.sup.a and τ.sub.b) in this special fitting. The measurement uncertainties for these observed signals were set to unity; accordingly, the output formal 1-sigma fitting errors were scaled so that the reduced chi-squared X.sup.2 values were approximately equal to one.

[0110] The model fit parameters were constrained as follows: S0=[100, 1000]; R.sub.2.sup.i=[1, 20] (1/s); R.sub.2.sup.a=[0.5, 100] (1/s) and τ.sub.b=[1, 1000] (μs), with initial values set respectively to 500, 10, 20 and 250. If fitted parameters were equal to the boundary values or their relative uncertainties exceeded 100%, these fits would be excluded from further analysis. The goodness of fit was loosely defined by R.sup.2, indicating to what extent the observed R.sub.1ρ dispersion profile could be explained by the fitted model. Paired student's t-tests were used to assess R.sub.1ρ differences obtained from between the previous R.sub.1ρ mapping methods and the proposed R.sub.1ρ dispersion protocol, with significant differences denoted by P<0.05. All measurements are shown as mean±SD unless stated otherwise, and all image and data analysis were conducted with an in-house software developed in IDL 8.5 (Harris Geospatial Solutions, Inc., Broomfield, Colo., USA).

Results

An Optimized R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Imaging Sequence

[0111] Two key components in the SL prepared turbo-FLASH sequence are illustrated in FIGS. 9A-9B. As revealed by Bloch simulations in FIGS. 18A-18D, the proposed SL method (FIGS. 9A and 18D) was more robust to B.sub.0 and B.sub.1 field artifacts with less signal modulation for a wider range of SL strengths (ω.sub.1/2π) particularly when ω.sub.1/2π was relatively weak.

[0112] FIG. 9C shows an exemplary R.sub.1ρ-weighting map derived from EQUATIONS 8-9 with

[0113] R.sub.2.sup.i=R.sub.2.sup.a=20 (1/s), and τ.sub.b=300 (μs), where 8 black circles traced an approximately constant M.sub.prep of 50% trajectory. The M.sub.prep contour plots with τ.sub.b=100, 200, 300 (μs) and with τ.sub.b=150 (μs) and R.sub.2.sup.i=15 (1/s) are respectively displayed in FIGS. 19A-19D, where the trajectories for M.sub.prep of 50% in FIGS. 19C-19D were quite similar.

[0114] FIG. 9D demonstrates different M.sub.prep evolutions towards steady-state (M.sub.ss) during FLASH imaging readout. For instance, M.sub.ss became around 0.18 with TR/T1=6.8/1240 and FA=13° (see EQUATION 5), and M.sub.prep will evolve decreasingly or increasingly when it was larger (green line) or smaller (blue line) than M.sub.ss (red line), respectively. The k-space filling pattern (Ky-Kz, phase-encoding directions) is illustrated in FIG. 9E, where the central region was covered by the first few shots to avoid any potentially involuntary knee movements.

Simulated Noisy Quantitative R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion

[0115] FIGS. 10A-10D show the simulated noisy R.sub.1ρ dispersion quantifications with (+, solid line) and without (−, dashed lines) an REF under the influences of varying SNRs. The fitting accuracies, RMSE(%), were significantly improved for R.sub.2.sup.i (FIG. 10A), R.sub.2.sup.a (FIG. 10B) and τ.sub.b (FIG. 10C) when an REF was included as demonstrated for M.sub.prep=50% (blue) and 70% (red). Yet, a slightly decreased RMSE(%) could be attained using a cluster of M.sub.prep (i.e. All=50%+60%+70%, black) without an REF. FIG. 10D proves that a relatively precise R.sub.2.sup.i could be realized using either one M.sub.prep with an REF or a cluster of M.sub.prep without an REF. TABLE 4 lists the mean (n=1000) and SD of each fitted parameter with SNR=30, 60 and 90. In general, the quantification accuracy of R.sub.1ρ dispersion improves progressively or dramatically when SNR increases or comprising an REF, respectively. It is worth indicating that these simulated results did not consider any potential biases stemmed from the related imaging readout.

[0116] If an REF had not been reliably identified in reality, the expected (red sold line) R.sub.1ρ dispersion characterization would have been compromised (black solid line) as revealed in FIG. 10F, where R.sub.2.sup.i was reduced intentionally from its input value of 15 (1/s) (red dashed line) to a biased 10 (1/s) (black dashed line) when modeling an erroneous REF. As a result, the fitted parameters would become biased as indicated in FIG. 10E (vertical dashed line), where a range of relative uncertainties δR.sub.2.sup.i, from −100% to 100%, were considered. Largely, δR.sub.2.sup.i is proportional to δτ.sub.b(green) but inversely proportional to δR.sub.2.sup.i (red) and δS (blue).

An Optimal FA and Estimated SNRs

[0117] For different N and initial M.sub.prep, an optimal FA could be calculated (FIG. 11B) with TR/T.sub.1=6.8 1240 (EQUATIONS 5-7). For instance, these optima decreased gradually from 15.6° to 12.3° (N=64, green line) when M.sub.prep increased from 0 and 100% (FIG. 11A); therefore, an optimal FA of 13° was used in this study. Nonetheless, these predicted optima would have been respectively decreased or increased if N had been increased or decreased, consistent with a previous finding. Compared with other FAs (FIG. 11C), an ROI-based R.sub.1ρ-weighted signal became the largest when using FA=13° in the tibial (green circle) or patellar (blue square) cartilage (FIG. 11D). However, this was not the case for the signals from the femoral condyle (red diamond) and muscle near the knee (data not shown). Quantitatively, a signal increase of less than 10% was found when FA changed from a previously used 10° to an optimum 13°.

[0118] The SNR of R.sub.1ρ-weighted image was estimated using previously acquired datasets (n=5); specifically, the femoral, tibial and patellar cartilage had respectively SNR of 66.5±13.6, 107.0±23.5 and 69.3±13.9. Although some original acquisition parameters (e.g. FA, voxel size and SL scheme) had been altered, the developed (i.e. improved) R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol could still generate a comparable SNR, as demonstrated by two overlaid line profiles (FIG. 12C) taken from the same anatomical location (FIG. 12A-12B). It is worth noting that both the improved (TSL=21 ms, FIG. 12A) and the original (TSL=20 ms, FIG. 12B) R.sub.1ρ-weighted images were acquired using ω.sub.1/2π=500 (Hz), and that the total scan time was only 1:09 minutes for the former and 1:45 minutes for the latter.

In Vivo Quantitative R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Imaging

[0119] FIG. 13 illustrates some exemplary measured (colored symbols) and modeled (black lines) cartilage R.sub.1ρ dispersion profiles from the left knee of the first subject. These examples were obtained from two radially-segmented ROIs in the superficial (FIG. 13B) and the deep (FIG. 13C) tibial cartilage (FIG. 13A, yellow arrow). Here, all measurements with M.sub.prep=50% (red), 60% (green) and 70% (blue) were considered together, and the R.sub.1ρ dispersion fitting incorporated an REF1 measured in the deep femoral cartilage. FIG. 13D replots the data of M.sub.prep=60% from FIG. 13C, with a straight line (black) standing for the fit of an REF1 data (i.e. equivalent to ω.sub.1=∞) and a curved line (black) for the fit of the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersion profile using ω.sub.1/2π from 0 to 1 kHz (see TABLE 3) and TSL from 13 to 24 (ms).

[0120] It was clear that R.sub.1ρ became significantly (P<0.01) less dispersed in the superficial zone (SZ) than in the deep zone (DZ), with the least at the MA orientation; specifically, the fitted R.sub.2.sup.a(1/s), τ.sub.b (μs) and S (10.sup.−3) were respectably 14.8±0.9 vs. 27.6±1.3, 205±17 vs. 104±8 and 2.13±0.11 vs. 4.07±0.19 in the SZ and DZ. Further analyses for each group were also performed and the fitted R.sub.2.sup.i, R.sub.2.sup.a, S and τ.sub.b, with (+) and without (−) an REF1, are tabulated in TABLE 5.

[0121] FIG. 14 compares the resulting fits in the DZ, showing that the precisions of the fits (i.e. error bars) were markedly improved as predicted by the previous simulations (FIG. 2) when including an REF1 (red bars). Taken the “All” M.sub.prep group without an REF1 (blue bars) as a reference, a single group of M.sub.prep=50% or 60% with an REF1 generated a relatively more accurate quantification than that from M.sub.prep=70%. This observation was possibly accounted for by an unreliable REF1 derived from a relatively limited TSL range used for M.sub.prep=70% (see TABLE 3)

[0122] As revealed in FIGS. 15A-15B, when all segmented ROIs in the deep femoral cartilage were considered, an average fitted S.sub.0 in logarithmic scale (FIG. 15A) or R.sub.2.sup.i (FIG. 15B) from the “All” M.sub.prep group without an REF1 (blue solid line) was very close to that from M.sub.prep=60% with an REF1 (red solid line), i.e. 6.64±0.03 vs. 6.52±0.13 and 12.8±1.7 vs. 11.3±3.0 (1/s). These average S.sub.0 and R.sub.2.sup.i from the “All” group could be used to generate an REF2 corresponding to ω.sub.1=∞. When including either an REF1 (red) or an REF2 (blue) in quantifying the observed R.sub.1ρ dispersion profiles, no statistically significant differences could be found between the fitted R.sub.2.sup.a(1/s) as shown in FIG. 15C (i.e. 11.6±5.9 vs. 11.5±6.7, P=0.95) and the fitted τ.sub.b (μs) in FIG. 15D (i.e. 139±64 vs. 134±80, P=0.85). This in vivo observation is in consistent with the presented cartilage R.sub.1ρ dispersion theory (EQUATION 9).

An Orientation-Independent Order Parameter S

[0123] An exemplary quantitative cartilage R.sub.1ρ dispersion (M.sub.prep=60%) of the third subject's left knee is presented in FIG. 16. Particularly, an anatomical T2W sagittal image was shown in FIG. 16A superimposed with angularly and radially segmented ROIs, and the ROI-based parametric maps (R.sub.2.sup.i, R.sub.2.sup.a, τ.sub.b, S and R.sup.2) were respectively overlaid upon the T2W image in FIGS. 16B-16F. Less reliable quantification was evident particularly around the trochlear cartilage as indicated by reduced R.sup.2 values (FIG. 16F), resulting from a vanishing residual dipolar coupling near the MA orientation.

[0124] With respect to the fitted R.sub.2.sup.a and τ.sub.b (FIGS. 16C-16D), the orientation dependences of the fitted R.sub.2.sup.i (FIG. 16B) and S (FIG. 16E) were markedly reduced, which was not unexpected. In a longitudinal cartilage study, this derived order parameter S should remain unchanged for a specific location unless collagen is somewhat depleted due to OA. A summary of quantitative R.sub.1ρ dispersion (M.sub.prep=60%) for all knees including repeated scans is provided in TABLE 6, with the fitted parameters derived from segmented ROIs in the DZ and SZ of femoral, tibial and patellar cartilage. It is worth mentioning that it was a challenging task to manually segment the DZ from the calcified cartilag. Thus, it would not be surprised to observe some abrupt changes of R.sub.2.sup.a in the DZ such as in the tibial cartilage (FIG. 16C).

Synthetic and Measured R.sub.1ρ with ω.sub.1/2π=500 Hz

[0125] Considering the femoral DZ only from the second (FIGS. 17A and 17C) and the third subject (FIGS. 17B and 17D), the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol (blue) exhibited good reproducibility based on two repeated scans (solid and dashed). For example, the derived average order parameters S (10.sup.−3) were 4.03±1.21 vs. 3.82±1.14 (p =.57, FIG. 17A) and 4.09±1.54 vs. 4.28±1.4 (p=0.69, FIG. 17B), respectively.

[0126] A measured (red) and a synthetic (blue) R.sub.1ρ distribution are compared in FIGS. 17C-17D, showing that an average measured value (1/s) was significantly smaller than that of the synthetic, e.g. 13.8±3.0 vs. 26.9±8.3, p<10.sup.−4, for the second scan from the second subject (solid, FIG. 17C). These findings agree well with a recent multi-vendor and multi-site R.sub.1ρ quantification of knee cartilage study, indicating that R.sub.1ρ was greatly underestimated using a conventional fast gradient-echo sequence.

[0127] Furthermore, the overall synthetic R.sub.1ρ from these two subjects, as tabulated in TABLE 7, was not significantly (p=0.71) different from that measured by the state-of-the-art 3D MAPSS sequence, i.e. 24.4±6.0 vs. 23.6±2.9 (1/s), suggesting that the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol was also less sensitive to the transient magnetization evolution artifacts. These reported R.sub.1ρ relaxation rates would have become 41.0±10.2 vs. 42.4±5.2 (ms) if they had been expressed with T.sub.1ρ relaxation time constants (i.e. T.sub.1ρ=1/R.sub.1ρ).

Discussion

[0128] This work presents an efficient and robust R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol that can provide a unique MR imaging biomarker specifically related to collagen changes in highly ordered tissues such as human knee articular cartilage in clinical studies. This new method was developed based on previous findings including R.sub.1ρ relaxation dispersion mechanism, and corroborated by in vivo knee imaging and simulation studies. The comparison results suggest that much more detailed R.sub.1ρ dispersion characterization could be attained within a similar scan duration normally used for the conventional R.sub.1ρ mapping.

Restricted Water Molecular Reorientation Correlation Time τ.SUB.b

[0129] Although a plethora of in vivo knee cartilage R.sub.1ρ mapping research has been performed in the past, only two quantitative R.sub.1ρ dispersion studies can be found in the literature. The functional form of R.sub.1ρ dispersion turned out to be a kind of Lorentzian function regardless of the reported relaxation mechanisms. The so-called inflection point (ω.sub.ip) on R.sub.1ρ dispersion profile could be determined by setting the second derivative of such a Lorentzian function to zero, which is directly linked to the characteristically slow molecular motion time scale, i.e. 1/τ.sub.b=2√{square root over (3)}*ω.sub.ip based on EQUATION 9. The measured ω.sub.ip values on in vivo human knee cartilage at 3T have been reported previously, and an average τ.sub.b (μs) was calculated as 262±58, with a minimum and maximum of 168 and 420, respectively. These rough estimates are in good agreement with previous findings. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to select τ.sub.b of 300 μs for numerical simulations and for determining the tailored TSL and ω.sub.1 values as listed in TABLE 3.

An Optimal FA for FLASH Sequence

[0130] An empirical relationship between an optimal FA, θ.sub.opt(°), and the number of profiles, N, was given as θ.sub.opt=√{square root over (8192/N)}, assuming that M.sub.prep was 100% and an effect of longitudinal T.sub.1 relaxation was negligible (i.e. T.sub.1=∞) during FLASH imaging readout. In the case of a finite τ.sub.1=1240 ms for cartilage and TR=6.8 ms, an optimal FA should become relatively larger to compensate for some magnetization loss due to the finite T.sub.1 relaxation.

[0131] For instance, an optimal FA (N=64, M.sub.prep=100%.) would become 12.3° and 11.3°, respectively, with and without considering T.sub.1 relaxation. Nonetheless, an approximately quadratic decrease in θ.sub.opt could still be observed when N progressively increased from 32 to 128 as shown in FIG. 11A.

An Efficient Quantitative R.SUB.1ρ Dispersion Protocol

[0132] Even though the acquisition time was reduced by about 30% (1:09 vs. 1:45 minutes) for one R.sub.1ρ-weighted dataset when using the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion rather than the previous standard R.sub.1ρ mapping protocol, a comparable SNR as demonstrated in FIG. 12 could still be attained. This result could be largely attributed to a larger pixel size (i.e. 0.6*0.6 vs. 0.4*0.4 mm.sup.2) and a fully-refocused SL preparation being used in the proposed method. Although 8 R.sub.1ρ-weighting 3D images were acquired per M.sub.prep in this study and incorporated an internal reference (i.e. 8 extra data points) to fit four model parameters, only two acquisitions would suffice. In fact, this unique concept has been employed in previous work to derive an anisotropic R.sub.2.sup.a from a single τ.sub.2-weighed image.

[0133] There still exists ample room for further improvement of the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol; for instance, a dramatic change on knee cartilage R.sub.1ρ dispersion profile should occur around ω.sub.ip/2π=200 Hz as reported, and thus the ω.sub.1 distribution should have been tailored accordingly to maximize the sensitivity of R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging. Moreover, the reported ω.sub.1 ranges need to be modified if MR scanner hardwire does not afford the highest SL RF strength of 1000 Hz. In this work, a dedicated 16-channel transmit/receive knee coil was employed that could generate a maximum B.sub.1 of about 27 μT, equivalent to ω.sub.1/2π=1150 Hz on the 3T MR scanner.

Dispersed and Non-Dispersed R.SUB.1ρ Components

[0134] The theoretical basis for the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol relies on the fact that R.sub.1ρ relaxation can be accounted for by two leading contributions, i.e. the non-dispersed and dispersed parts. In the case of articular cartilage as shown by EQUATION 9, these two contributions are an isotropic R.sub.2.sup.i and an anisotropic R.sub.2.sup.a, assuming a negligible chemicall exchange R.sub.2.sup.ex. This biophysical understanding of R.sub.1ρ dispersion mechanism is fully aligned with an insightful view from the literature in that small amount of water molecules hidden within the triple-helix interstices in collagen microstructure becomes mainly responsible for the observed R.sub.1ρ dispersion.

[0135] Such an insight into R.sub.1ρ relaxation mechanism not only warrants the specificity of the derived MR relaxation metrics such as R.sub.2.sup.a and S, but also provides an opportunity to exploit other valuable information without any additional scan time. In the previous and the current work, an internal reference was used to facilitate R.sub.1ρ dispersion modeling. In an ideal scenario as shown in EQUATION 9, this reference information represented by R.sub.2.sup.i should be the same whether it is determined when θ=55° (REF1) or when ω.sub.1=∞ (REF2). Nevertheless, if R.sub.2.sup.ex is included at the magic angle orientation (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.a=0) even it is insignificant in other cartilage locations (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.a>>R.sub.2.sup.ex), REF2 (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.i) would be less than REF1 (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.i+R.sub.2.sup.ex) just as appeared in FIG. 15B. It is quite likely that the observed difference between REF1 and REF2 could have been larger if REF1 had not been underestimated due to the specific femoral condyle geometry. This was because that some deep femoral cartilage in sagittal imaging slices had not been adequately characterized by a function of R.sub.2.sup.a3 cos.sup.2 θ−1.sup.2/4.

Measuring an Unbiased R.sub.1ρ with FLASH Sequence

[0136] The primary utility of 3D MAPSS was to measure an accurate R.sub.1ρ of human knee cartilage by eliminating an adverse longitudinal relaxation effect, which was manifested by a varying k-space filtering for different prepared magnetizations. Without such a dedicated attention, R.sub.1ρ could be markedly underestimated as demonstrated in a recent multi-center and multi-vendor knee cartilage R.sub.1ρ mapping study. Similarly, the current study also confirmed the previous findings as shown in FIGS. 17C and 17C in which the observed R.sub.1ρ was greatly reduced when using the standard R.sub.1ρ mapping.

[0137] On the other hand, the overall synthetic R.sub.1ρ (ω.sub.1/2π=500 Hz) values from this study are comparable with that measured with 3D MAPPS, suggesting that the developed R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging method is not only efficient but also robust—free from the T.sub.1 relaxation effect during FLASH imaging readout. Recently, an efficient 3D MAPSS without RF phase cycling was reported for a robust neuro R.sub.1ρ mapping using a different variable flip-angle scheduling tailored to various prepared R.sub.1ρ magnetization. This improved 3D MAPSS method would be cumbersome if it is used for R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging, and the SL preparation has not yet been optimized. As demonstrated in FIG. 16, much more information could be derived from the proposed efficient method; for instance, a standard R.sub.1ρ mapping (i.e. R.sub.2.sup.i+R.sub.2.sup.a), synthetic R.sub.1ρ mapping with any ω.sub.1/2π value. Most importantly, an orientation-independent order parameter S can be determined for both longitudinal and cross-sectional clinical studies of human knee articular cartilage.

Conclusions

[0138] An efficient and robust R.sub.1ρ dispersion imaging protocol that is less susceptible to imaging artifacts from non-uniform B.sub.0 and B.sub.1 fields during SL preparation and from an adverse T.sub.1 relaxation effect during FLASH imaging readout has been developed. While the proposed method was developed and demonstrated on human knee articular cartilage, its application may be expanded to other biological tissues and relevant disorders, such as liver fibrosis and intervertebral disc degeneration, already being studied by standard R.sub.1ρ mapping. Continued refinement of R.sub.1ρ relaxation dispersion methodology will facilitate additional insight into pathophysiological processes, more accurate diagnoses, and better characterization of treatment efficacy in clinical joint cartilage studies.

Exemplary System

[0139] With reference to FIG. 20, an exemplary system for implementing the blocks of the method and apparatus includes a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer 12. Components of computer 12 may include, but are not limited to, a processing unit 14 and a system memory 16. The computer 12 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as remote computers 70-1, 70-2, . . . 70-n, via a local area network (LAN) 72 and/or a wide area network (WAN) 73 via a modem or other network interface 75. These remote computers 70 may include other computers like computer 12, but in some examples, these remote computers 70 include one or more of (i) a medical imaging system, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, (ii) a signal records database systems, (iii) a scanner, and/or (v) a signal filtering system.

[0140] In the illustrated example, the computer 12 is connected to a medical imaging system 70-1. The medical imaging system 70-1 may be a stand-alone system capable of performing imaging of molecules, such as water, in biological tissue for in vivo examination. The system 70-1 may have resolution of such biological features as fibers, membranes, micromolecules, etc., wherein the image data can reveal microscopic details about biological tissue architecture, in a normal state or diseased state.

[0141] Computer 12 typically includes a variety of computer readable media that may be any available media that may be accessed by computer 12 and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and non-removable media. The system memory 16 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM). The ROM may include a basic input/output system (BIOS). RAM typically contains data and/or program modules that include operating system 20, application programs 22, other program modules 24, and program data 26. The computer 12 may also include other removable/non-removable, volatile/nonvolatile computer storage media such as a hard disk drive, a magnetic disk drive that reads from or writes to a magnetic disk, and an optical disk drive that reads from or writes to an optical disk.

[0142] A user may enter commands and information into the computer 12 through input devices such as a keyboard 30 and pointing device 32, commonly referred to as a mouse, trackball or touch pad. Other input devices (not illustrated) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 14 through a user input interface 35 that is coupled to a system bus, but may be connected by other interface and bus structures, such as a parallel port, game port or a universal serial bus (USB). A monitor 40 or other type of display device may also be connected to the processor 14 via an interface, such as a video interface 42. In addition to the monitor, computers may also include other peripheral output devices such as speakers 50 and printer 52, which may be connected through an output peripheral interface 55.

Exemplary Method

[0143] Referring now to FIG. 21, a flow diagram of an exemplary method 100 of analyzing ordered tissue to calculate an orientation-independent order parameter S that is sensitive to the microstructural integrity of cartilage is illustrated in accordance with an embodiment. The method 100 can be implemented as a set of instructions stored on a computer-readable memory and executable on one or more processors.

[0144] A magnetic resonance image of an ordered tissue may be acquired (block 102). For example, the ordered tissue may be nerve tissue, white matter tissue, intervertebral disk, skeletal muscle tissue, myocardial muscle tissue, tendon tissue, cartilage tissue, or any other highly structured or highly ordered tissue in the human body.

[0145] Based on the magnetic resonance image of the ordered tissue, an R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue may be measured (block 104). Based on the measured R.sub.1ρ dispersion of the ordered tissue, R.sub.2.sup.a(α) and τ.sub.b(α) for the ordered tissue may be derived (block 106).

[0146] An orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue may be calculated (block 108) using the following equation:

[00010]$S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3d^2}\frac{R_2^a\left(\alpha \right)}{{\tau }_b\left(\alpha \right)}}.$

For example, a lower value for the orientation-independent order parameter S may correspond to a greater degeneration of the ordered tissue, while a higher value for the orientation-independent order parameter S may correspond to a lesser degeneration of the ordered tissue.

[0147] Based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue, a level of degeneration of the ordered tissue may be determined (block 110). Moreover, in some examples, an indication of osteoarthritis in a patient associated with the ordered tissue may be determined based on the orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue. For instance, an orientation-independent order parameter S for the ordered tissue below a certain threshold value may indicate that the patient associated with the ordered tissue likely suffers from osteoarthritis.

Additional Considerations

[0148] Although the preceding text sets forth a detailed description of numerous different embodiments, it should be understood that the legal scope of the invention is defined by the words of the claims set forth at the end of this patent. The detailed description is to be construed as exemplary only and does not describe every possible embodiment, as describing every possible embodiment would be impractical, if not impossible. One could implement numerous alternate embodiments, using either current technology or technology developed after the filing date of this patent, which would still fall within the scope of the claims.

[0149] It should also be understood that, unless a term is expressly defined in this patent using the sentence “As used herein, the term ‘______’ is hereby defined to mean . . . ” or a similar sentence, there is no intent to limit the meaning of that term, either expressly or by implication, beyond its plain or ordinary meaning, and such term should not be interpreted to be limited in scope based on any statement made in any section of this patent (other than the language of the claims). To the extent that any term recited in the claims at the end of this patent is referred to in this patent in a manner consistent with a single meaning, that is done for sake of clarity only so as to not confuse the reader, and it is not intended that such claim term be limited, by implication or otherwise, to that single meaning.

[0150] Throughout this specification, unless indicated otherwise, plural instances may implement components, operations, or structures described as a single instance. Although individual operations of one or more methods are illustrated and described as separate operations, one or more of the individual operations may be performed concurrently, and nothing requires that the operations be performed in the order illustrated. Structures and functionality presented as separate components in example configurations may likewise be implemented as a combined structure or component. Similarly, structures and functionality presented as a single component may be implemented as separate components. These and other variations, modifications, additions, and improvements fall within the scope of the subject matter herein.

[0151] Additionally, certain embodiments are described herein as including logic or a number of routines, subroutines, applications, or instructions. These may constitute either software (code embodied on a non-transitory, tangible machine-readable medium) or hardware. In hardware, the routines, etc., are tangible units capable of performing certain operations and may be configured or arranged in a certain manner. In example embodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client or server computer system) or one or more hardware modules of a computer system (e.g., a processor or a group of processors) may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) as a hardware module that operates to perform certain operations as described herein.

[0152] In various embodiments, a hardware module may be implemented mechanically or electronically. For example, a hardware module may comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured (e.g., as a special-purpose processor, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to perform certain operations. A hardware module may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost and time considerations.

[0153] Hardware modules can provide information to, and receive information from, other hardware modules. Accordingly, the described hardware modules may be regarded as being communicatively coupled. Where multiple of such hardware modules exist contemporaneously, communications may be achieved through signal transmission (e.g., over appropriate circuits and buses) that connect the hardware modules. In embodiments in which multiple hardware modules are configured or instantiated at different times, communications between such hardware modules may be achieved, for example, through the storage and retrieval of information in memory structures to which the multiple hardware modules have access. For example, one hardware module may perform an operation and store the output of that operation in a memory device to which it is communicatively coupled. A further hardware module may then, at a later time, access the memory device to retrieve and process the stored output. Hardware modules may also initiate communications with input or output devices, and can operate on a resource (e.g., a collection of information).

[0154] The various operations of example methods described herein may be performed, at least partially, by one or more processors that are temporarily configured (e.g., by software) or permanently configured to perform the relevant operations. Whether temporarily or permanently configured, such processors may constitute processor-implemented modules that operate to perform one or more operations or functions. The modules referred to herein may, in some example embodiments, comprise processor-implemented modules.

[0155] Similarly, in some embodiments, the methods or routines described herein may be at least partially processor-implemented. For example, at least some of the operations of a method may be performed by one or more processors or processor-implemented hardware modules. The performance of certain of the operations may be distributed among the one or more processors, not only residing within a single machine, but deployed across a number of machines. In some example embodiments, the one or more processors or processor-implemented modules may be located in a single geographic location (e.g., within a home environment, an office environment, or a server farm). In other example embodiments, the one or more processors or processor-implemented modules may be distributed across a number of geographic locations.

[0156] Unless specifically stated otherwise, discussions herein using words such as “processing,” “computing,” “calculating,” “determining,” “presenting,” “displaying,” or the like may refer to actions or processes of a machine (e.g., a computer) that manipulates or transforms data represented as physical (e.g., electronic, magnetic, or optical) quantities within one or more memories (e.g., volatile memory, non-volatile memory, or a combination thereof), registers, or other machine components that receive, store, transmit, or display information.

[0157] As used herein any reference to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular element, feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment. The appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” or “in some embodiments” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment or embodiments.

[0158] Some embodiments may be described using the terms “coupled,” “connected,” “communicatively connected,” or “communicatively coupled,” along with their derivatives. These terms may refer to a direct physical connection or to an indirect (physical or communication) connection. For example, some embodiments may be described using the term “coupled” to indicate that two or more elements are in direct physical or electrical contact. The term “coupled,” however, may also mean that two or more elements are not in direct contact with each other, but yet still co-operate or interact with each other. Unless expressly stated or required by the context of their use, the embodiments are not limited to direct connection.

[0159] As used herein, the terms “comprises,” “comprising,” “includes,” “including,” “has,” “having” or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements is not necessarily limited to only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus. Further, unless expressly stated to the contrary, “or” refers to an inclusive or and not to an exclusive or. For example, a condition A or B is satisfied by any one of the following: A is true (or present) and B is false (or not present), A is false (or not present) and B is true (or present), and both A and B are true (or present).

[0160] In addition, use of the “a” or “an” are employed to describe elements and components of the embodiments herein. This is done merely for convenience and to give a general sense of the description. This description, and the claims that follow, should be read to include one or at least one and the singular also includes the plural unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

[0161] Upon reading this disclosure, those of skill in the art will appreciate still additional alternative structural and functional designs for monitoring refrigerated air usage. Thus, while particular embodiments and applications have been illustrated and described, it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are not limited to the precise construction and components disclosed herein. Various modifications, changes and variations, which will be apparent to those skilled in the art, may be made in the arrangement, operation and details of the method and apparatus disclosed herein without departing from the spirit and scope defined in the appended claims.

[0162] The particular features, structures, or characteristics of any specific embodiment may be combined in any suitable manner and in any suitable combination with one or more other embodiments, including the use of selected features without corresponding use of other features. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular application, situation or material to the essential scope and spirit of the present invention. It is to be understood that other variations and modifications of the embodiments of the present invention described and illustrated herein are possible in light of the teachings herein and are to be considered part of the spirit and scope of the present invention.

[0163] Finally, the patent claims at the end of this patent application are not intended to be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), unless traditional means-plus-function language is expressly recited, such as “means for” or “step for” language being explicitly recited in the claims.