English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Purpose  To compare two pulsed, volumetric chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) acquisition schemes: steady state (SS) and pseudosteady state (PS) for the same brain coverage, spatial/spectral resolution and scan time.    Methods  Both schemes were optimized for maximum sensitivity to amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) effects through Bloch‐McConnell simulations, and compared in terms of sensitivity to APT and NOE effects, and to transmit field inhomogeneity. Five consented healthy volunteers were scanned on a 7 Tesla Philips MR‐system using the optimized protocols at three nominal B 1  amplitudes: 1 μT, 2 μT, and 3 μT.    Results  Region of interest based analysis revealed that PS is more sensitive ( P  < 0.05) to APT and NOE effects compared with SS at low B 1  amplitudes (0.7–1.0 μT). Also, both sequences have similar dependence on the transmit field inhomogeneity. For the optimum CEST presaturation parameters (1 μT and 2 μT for APT and NOE, respectively), NOE is less sensitive to the inhomogeneity effects (15% signal to noise ratio [SNR] change for a B 1  dropout of 40%) compared with APT (35% SNR change for a B 1  dropout of 40%).    Conclusion  For the same brain coverage, spatial/spectral resolution and scan time, at low power levels PS is more sensitive to the slow chemical exchange‐mediated processes compared with SS. Magn Reson Med 77:2280–2287, 2017. © 2016 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the  Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial  License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Comparison of pulsed three‐dimensional CEST acquisition schemes at 7 tesla: steady state versus pseudosteady state