Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition
9 May 2026 – 14 May 2026 · Cape Town, South Africa
567-03-009 ISMRM Abstract

A Whole-Body Digital Phantom for MR Signal Simulation with High-Resolution Spinal Cord Structures

Primary: Physics & Engineering - Phantoms
Secondary: Body - Whole Body Imaging
567-03-009 · Standardizing MRI Through Data Formats and Phantoms · Wednesday, 13 May, 1:40 PM–2:35 PM · Digital Posters Row H
Keywords: Phantoms Spinal Cord Whole Body MRI simulation
Accepted
Sebastian A Rios 1, Nilser Laines-Medina1,2,3,4, Gabrielle Marion1, Eva Alonso Ortiz1,5
1NeuroPoly Lab, Montreal, Canada
2Mila - Quebec AI Institute, Montreal, Canada
3Aix Marseille Univ, Marseille, France
4APHM, Marseille, France
5Centre de Recherche du CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada
Presenting Author: Sebastian A Rios

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. Marques, J. P. et al. QSM reconstruction challenge 2.0: A realistic in silico head phantom for MRI data simulation and evaluation of susceptibility mapping procedures. Magn. Reson. Med. 86, 526–542 (2021).
2. Selfridge, A. R. et al. Low-dose CT images of healthy cohort (healthy-total-body-CTs). The Cancer Imaging Archive https://doi.org/10.7937/NC7Z-4F76 (2023). [doi]
3. Wasserthal, J. et al. TotalSegmentator: Robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 5, e230024 (2023).
4. Yushkevich, P. A. et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31, 1116–1128 (2006).
5. De Leener, B. et al. PAM50: Unbiased multimodal template of the brainstem and spinal cord aligned with the ICBM152 space. Neuroimage 165, 170–179 (2018).
6. Smith, S. A., Edden, R. A. E., Farrell, J. A. D., Barker, P. B. & Van Zijl, P. C. M. Measurement of T1 and T2 in the cervical spinal cord at 3 tesla. Magn. Reson. Med. 60, 213–219 (2008).
7. Romascano, D. et al. Normative volumes and relaxation times at 3T during brain development. Sci. Data 11, 429 (2024).
8. Li, T.-Q. et al. Characterization of T(2)* heterogeneity in human brain white matter. Magn. Reson. Med. 62, 1652–1657 (2009).
9. Bojorquez, J. Z. et al. What are normal relaxation times of tissues at 3 T? Magn. Reson. Imaging 35, 69–80 (2017).
10. Yang, E., Kirkham, A. A., Grenier, J. & Thompson, R. B. Measurement and correction of the bulk magnetic susceptibility effects of fat: application in venous oxygen saturation imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 81, 3124–3137 (2019).
11. Roy, C. et al. Age and sex corrected normal reference values of T1, T2 T2* and ECV in healthy subjects at 3T CMR. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 19, 72 (2017).
12. Rauhalammi, S. M. O. et al. Native myocardial longitudinal (T1 ) relaxation time: Regional, age, and sex associations in the healthy adult heart. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 44, 541–548 (2016).
13. Stanisz, G. J. et al. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn. Reson. Med. 54, 507–512 (2005).
14. Kritsaneepaiboon, S., Ina, N., Chotsampancharoen, T., Roymanee, S. & Cheewatanakornkul, S. The relationship between myocardial and hepatic T2 and T2* at 1.5T and 3T MRI in normal and iron-overloaded patients. Acta Radiol. 59, 355–362 (2018).
15. Guzelbey, T., Demirbaş, Z. E. & Gurses, B. The evaluation of renal iron deposition with a 3 Tesla MRI device in beta-thalassemia major patients. Cureus 15, e36179 (2023).
16. Li, J. et al. T 2 ∗ -weighted imaging of the liver versus the spleen to assess hepatitis B-related cirrhosis and its Child–Pugh class. Radiol. Infect. Dis. 5, 33–40 (2018).
17. de Bazelaire, C. M. J., Duhamel, G. D., Rofsky, N. M. & Alsop, D. C. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 230, 652–659 (2004).
18. Wang, L. et al. Multiparametric quantitative MRI of healthy adult pancreas: correlations with gender and age. Front. Gastroenterol. 3, 1426687 (2024).
19. Wolf, M. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging T1- and T2-mapping to assess renal structure and function: a systematic review and statement paper. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant 33, ii41–ii50 (2018).
20. Jiang, D. et al. Quantification of T1 and T2 of subarachnoid CSF: Implications for water exchange between CSF and brain tissues. Magn. Reson. Med. 90, 2411–2419 (2023).
21. Sıla Dokumacı, A. et al. Quantitative T1 and Effective Proton Density (PD*) mapping in children and adults at 7T from an MP2RAGE sequence optimised for uniform T1-weighted (UNI) and FLuid And White matter Suppression (FLAWS) contrasts. medRxiv (2024) doi:10.1101/2024.06.28.24307535. [doi]
22. Gold, G. E. et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 183, 343–351 (2004).
23. Mars, M., Tbini, Z., Gharbi, S., Bouaziz, M. C. & Ladeb, F. T2 T2* MRI mapping in the knee articular cartilage at 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla. Open Med. J. 5, 119–129 (2018).
24. Hesper, T. et al. T2* mapping for articular cartilage assessment: principles, current applications, and future prospects. Skeletal Radiol. 43, 1429–1445 (2014).
25. Wei, H. et al. Investigating magnetic susceptibility of human knee joint at 7 Tesla. Magn. Reson. Med. 78, 1933–1943 (2017).
26. Henmar, S., Simonsen, E. B. & Berg, R. W. What are the gray and white matter volumes of the human spinal cord? J. Neurophysiol. 124, 1792–1797 (2020).
27. Drake-Pérez, M. et al. Normal values of magnetic relaxation parameters of spine components with the synthetic MRI sequence. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 39, 788–795 (2018).
28. Buch, S. et al. Susceptibility mapping of air, bone, and calcium in the head: QSM for Air, Bone, and Teeth. Magn. Reson. Med. 73, 2185–2194 (2015).
29. Zaeske, C. et al. The behaviour of T2* and T2 relaxation time in extrinsic foot muscles under continuous exercise: A prospective analysis during extended running. PLoS One 17, e0264066 (2022).
30. Gimsa, J. & Haberland, L. Electric and magnetic fields in cells and tissues. in Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics 6–14 (Elsevier, 2005).
31. Du, J. et al. Qualitative and quantitative ultrashort echo time (UTE) imaging of cortical bone. J. Magn. Reson. 207, 304–311 (2010).
32. Krug, R. et al. Ultrashort echo time MRI of cortical bone at 7 tesla field strength: a feasibility study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 34, 691–695 (2011).
33. Xiao. T2 relaxation time mapping of the lumbar spine at 3T MRI -different protocols comparison. Clinical Radiology & Imaging Journal 4, (2020).
34. Stadler, A., Jakob, P. M., Griswold, M., Barth, M. & Bankier, A. A. T1 mapping of the entire lung parenchyma: Influence of the respiratory phase in healthy individuals. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 21, 759–764 (2005).
35. Rafiee, M. J. et al. The correlation of lung T2 mapping with clinical cardiac biomarkers in patients with heart failure. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 26, 100827 (2024).
36. Malis, V. et al. Lung T2 * mapping using 3D ultrashort TE with tight intervals δTE. Magn. Reson. Med. 90, 2001–2010 (2023).
37. Lide, D. R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics-CRC Press (2003). (CRC Press, 2003).
38. Király, A. et al. Male brain ages faster: the age and gender dependence of subcortical volumes. Brain Imaging Behav. 10, 901–910 (2016).
39. Dymerska, B. et al. Phase unwrapping with a rapid opensource minimum spanning tree algorithm (ROMEO). Magn. Reson. Med. 85, 2294–2308 (2021).
40. Liu, T. et al. A novel background field removal method for MRI using projection onto dipole fields (PDF): IMPROVED BACKGROUND FIELD REMOVAL METHOD USING PDF. NMR Biomed. 24, 1129–1136 (2011).
41. Marques, J. P. & Bowtell, R. Application of a Fourier-based method for rapid calculation of field inhomogeneity due to spatial variation of magnetic susceptibility. Concepts Magn. Reson. Part B Magn. Reson. Eng. 25B, 65–78 (2005).

Cite this abstract

http://echo.ismrm.org/p/ISMRM2026/567-03-009