Time-division multiplexing (TDM) sequence removes bias in T2 estimation and relaxation-diffusion measurements.

Purpose: To compare the performance of multi-echo (ME) and time-division multiplexing (TDM) sequences for accelerated relaxation-diffusion MRI (rdMRI) acquisition and to examine their reliability in estimating accurate rdMRI microstructure measures. Method: The ME, TDM, and the reference single-echo (SE) sequences with six echo times (TE) were implemented using Pulseq with single-band (SB-) and multi-band 2 (MB2-) acceleration factors. On a diffusion phantom, the image intensities of the three sequences were compared, and the differences were quantified using the normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE). For the in-vivo brain scan, besides the image intensity comparison and T2-estimates, different methods were used to assess sequence-related effects on microstructure estimation, including the relaxation diffusion imaging moment (REDIM) and the maximum-entropy relaxation diffusion distribution (MaxEnt-RDD). Results: TDM performance was similar to the gold standard SE acquisition, whereas ME showed greater biases (3-4× larger NRMSEs for phantom, 2× for in-vivo). T2 values obtained from TDM closely matched SE, whereas ME sequences underestimated the T2 relaxation time. TDM provided similar diffusion and relaxation parameters as SE using REDIM, whereas SB-ME exhibited a 60% larger bias in the map and on average 3.5× larger bias in the covariance between relaxation-diffusion coefficients. Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrates that TDM provides a more accurate estimation of relaxation-diffusion measurements while accelerating the acquisitions by a factor of 2 to 3.

Reduced cross-scanner variability using vendor-agnostic sequences for single-shell diffusion MRI.

PURPOSE: To reduce the inter-scanner variability of diffusion MRI (dMRI) measures between scanners from different vendors by developing a vendor-neutral dMRI pulse sequence using the open-source vendor-agnostic Pulseq platform. METHODS: We implemented a standard EPI based dMRI sequence in Pulseq. We tested it on two clinical scanners from different vendors (Siemens Prisma and GE Premier), systematically evaluating and comparing the within- and inter-scanner variability across the vendors, using both the vendor-provided and Pulseq dMRI sequences. Assessments covered both a diffusion phantom and three human subjects, using standard error (SE) and Lin's concordance correlation to measure the repeatability and reproducibility of standard DTI metrics including fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD). RESULTS: Identical dMRI sequences were executed on both scanners using Pulseq. On the phantom, the Pulseq sequence showed more than a 2.5× reduction in SE (variability) across Siemens and GE scanners. Furthermore, Pulseq sequences exhibited markedly reduced SE in-vivo, maintaining scan-rescan repeatability while delivering lower variability in FA and MD (more than 50% reduction in cortical/subcortical regions) compared to vendor-provided sequences. CONCLUSION: The Pulseq diffusion sequence reduces the cross-scanner variability for both phantom and in-vivo data, which will benefit multi-center neuroimaging studies and improve the reproducibility of neuroimaging studies.