Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition
9 May 2026 – 14 May 2026 · Cape Town, South Africa
560-02-016 ISMRM Abstract

ViewMotionQSM: A MATLAB Toolbox for Motion Simulation and Evaluation in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping

Primary: Contrast Mechanisms - Susceptibility/QSM
Secondary: Acquisition & Reconstruction - Motion Correction: Neuro
560-02-016 · New Developments in QSM II · Wednesday, 13 May, 9:15 AM–10:10 AM · Digital Posters Row A
Keywords: Quantitative Susceptibility mapping Multi-echo GRE Motion simulation Dipole inversion
Accepted
Junheng Tian1, Jiantai Zhou1, BenSheng Qiu1, Dan Mu2, Lin Chen 2,3,4
1Medical Imaging Center, Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science, University of Science and Technology of China(USTC), Hefei, China
2Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
3Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science and Technology of China(USTC), Hefei, China
4Chinese Academy of Sciences High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Hefei, China
Presenting Author: Lin Chen

Synopsis

Motivation:
Goals:
Approach:
Results:
Full abstract & presentation

The full text, figures, and any recorded presentation for this abstract are not shown here. Log in if you are a member or registered attendee with access.

Full abstracts, figures, and presentations for Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition are available to registered attendees. This content becomes freely available to the public roughly two years after the meeting.

To request or purchase access, contact the ISMRM Central Office at info@ismrm.org.

Log in

References

1. Deistung A, Schweser F, Reichenbach JR. Overview of quantitative susceptibility mapping. NMR Biomed. 2017;30(4). doi:10.1002/nbm.3569 [doi]
2. Wang Y, Liu T. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): Decoding MRI data for a tissue magnetic biomarker. Magn Reson Med. 2015;73(1):82-101. doi:10.1002/mrm.25358 [doi]
3. QSM Consensus Organization Committee, Bilgic B, Costagli M, et al. Recommended implementation of quantitative susceptibility mapping for clinical research in the brain: A consensus of the ISMRM electro‐magnetic tissue properties study group. Magn Reson Med. 2024;91(5):1834-1862. doi:10.1002/mrm.30006 [doi]
4. Zaitsev M, Maclaren J, Herbst M. Motion artifacts in MRI: A complex problem with many partial solutions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(4):887-901. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24850 [doi]
5. Mattern H, Sciarra A, Lusebrink F, Acosta-Cabronero J, Speck O. Prospective motion correction improves high‐resolution quantitative susceptibility mapping at 7T. Magn Reson Med. 2019;81(3):1605-1619. doi:10.1002/mrm.27509 [doi]
6. Armanious K, Jiang CM, Fischer M, Kuestner T, Nikolaou K, Gatidis S, Yang B. MedGAN: Medical image translation using GANs. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2020;79: 101684. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2019.101684 [doi]
7. Schofield MA, Zhu Y. Fast phase unwrapping algorithm for interferometric applications. Opt Lett. 2003;28(14):1194. doi:10.1364/OL.28.001194 [doi]
8. Abdul-Rahman HS, Gdeisat MA, Burton DR, Lalor MJ, Lilley F, Moore CJ. Fast and robust three-dimensional best path phase unwrapping algorithm. Appl Opt. 2007;46(26):6623-6635. doi:10.1364/ao.46.006623 [doi]
9. Dymerska B, Eckstein K, Bachrata B, et al. Phase unwrapping with a rapid opensource minimum spanning tree algorithm (ROMEO). Magn Reson Med. 2021;85(4):2294-2308. doi:10.1002/mrm.28563 [doi]
10. Liu T, Khalidov I, de Rochefort L, et al. A novel background field removal method for MRI using projection onto dipole fields (PDF). NMR Biomed. 2011;24(9):1129-1136. doi:10.1002/nbm.1670 [doi]
11. Wu B, Li W, Guidon A, Liu C. Whole brain susceptibility mapping using compressed sensing. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67(1):137-147. doi:10.1002/mrm.23000 [doi]
12. Zhou D, Liu T, Spincemaille P, Wang Y. Background field removal by solving the Laplacian boundary value problem. NMR Biomed. 2014;27(3):312-319. doi:10.1002/nbm.3064 [doi]
13. Fang J, Bao L, Li X, Van Zijl PCM, Chen Z. Background field removal for susceptibility mapping of human brain with large susceptibility variations. Magn Reson Med. 2019;81(3):2025-2037. doi:10.1002/mrm.27492 [doi]
14. Wharton S, Schäfer A, Bowtell R. Susceptibility mapping in the human brain using threshold‐based k ‐space division. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63(5):1292-1304. doi:10.1002/mrm.22334 [doi]
15. Li W, Wang N, Yu F, et al. A method for estimating and removing streaking artifacts in quantitative susceptibility mapping. NeuroImage. 2015;108:111-122. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.043 [doi]
16. Liu J, Liu T, de Rochefort L, et al. Morphology enabled dipole inversion for quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural consistency between the magnitude image and the susceptibility map. NeuroImage. 2012;59(3):2560-2568. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.082 [doi]
17. Polak D, Chatnuntawech I, Yoon J, et al. Nonlinear dipole inversion (NDI) enables robust quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). NMR Biomed. 2020;33(12):e4271. doi:10.1002/nbm.4271 [doi]
18. Bao L, Li X, Cai C, Chen Z, van Zijl PCM. Quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural feature based collaborative reconstruction (SFCR) in the human brain. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35(9):2040-2050. doi:10.1109/TMI.2016.2544958 [doi]

Cite this abstract

http://echo.ismrm.org/p/ISMRM2026/560-02-016