Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Quantitative Macromolecular Proton Fraction Imaging using Pulsed Spin-Lock

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Pulsed spin-lock trains make magnetization-transfer imaging practical: a ratio-matched pair of pulsed spin-lock measurements yields a macromolecule-specific relaxation-rate difference, so MPF maps can be computed without a T1 map or…

desk verdict MPF-PSL is a genuinely useful extension of spin-lock qMT that removes the T1-map and RF duty-cycle barriers, but the free-precession approximation needs tighter validation before I'd trust it outside liver. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21853 v1 pith:AC44KIMA submitted 2025-05-28 physics.med-ph physics.app-ph

Qianxue Shan (1) , Ziqiang Yu (1) , Baiyan Jiang (1 , 2) , Jian Hou (1) , Qiuyi Shen (1) , Winnie CW Chu (1) , Vincent WS Wong (3)
show 4 more authors
Weitian Chen (1) ((1) Department of Imaging Interventional Radiology (2) Illumination Medical Technology Limited (3) Department of Medicine Therapeutics)
This is my paper
classification physics.med-phphysics.app-ph
keywords macromolecularprotonfractionmagnetizationtransferimagingpulsedspin-lockMRIR1ρrelaxometryliverfibrosisquantitativeBloch-McConnellsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantitative magnetization transfer usually needs long continuous radiofrequency irradiation, which commercial MRI systems cannot always deliver because the RF power amplifier runs out even when safety limits allow. This paper claims that replacing continuous spin-lock with a train of short spin-lock pulses separated by free-precession pauses keeps magnetization-transfer contrast while letting the amplifier recover. It derives a closed-form relaxation rate for the two-pool model under this pulsed train and shows that the difference of two such rates, measured with matched offset-to-amplitude ratios, cancels water-pool relaxation and depends only on the macromolecular pool. If that is right, macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) maps can be acquired more precisely than with continuous-wave spin-lock, without a $T_1$ map, and in body organs such as the liver, where long RF pulses are hardest to deliver.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single spin-lock module: a short CW irradiation stage of duration $T_p$ (about 10 ms) followed by a free-precession stage of duration $T_f$ (about 50 ms), repeated $n$ times; the inverse duty ratio is $\mathrm{IDR} = (n-1)T_f/(nT_p)$. The argument is carried by the transient-state relationship $M_{zb} = f_b(1-\beta)M_{za}$ during the pulse, with $\beta = [R_{rfb}/(k_{ba}+R_{rfb})](1 - e^{-(k_{ba}+R_{rfb})T_p})$, which lets the rotating-frame relaxation stage and the free-precession stage be chained into a geometric series and yields the closed-form $R_{1\rho,\mathrm{pul}}$. The MT-specific readout is the difference $R_{\mathrm{mpfsl,pul}}$ of two pulsed rates acquired with equal ratios $\Delta\omega/\omega_1$; that ratio symmetry cancels the water-pool terms, leaving an explicit function of $f_b$ (and the assumed-constant $k_{ba}$ and $T_{2b}$).

What would settle it

Run a full Bloch-McConnell simulation with the ratio condition satisfied but tissue parameters outside the validated window (e.g., $T_{1a}\approx 2$ s with $T_{1b}\approx 0.3$ s, $f_b = 19\%$, or $T_p$ beyond 20 ms): if the fitted $R_{1\rho,\mathrm{pul}}$ deviates measurably from Eq. (12), or if $R_{\mathrm{mpfsl,pul}}$ shifts when only $R_{1a}$ and $R_{2a}$ are varied, the claimed MT-specificity is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-pool magnetization-transfer system driven by an off-resonance pulsed spin-lock train decays mono-exponentially with rate $R_{1\rho,\mathrm{pul}} = R_{1\rho} + \mathrm{IDR}\,R_{1a} + (\mathrm{IDR}/T_f)\,f_b\beta$, where IDR is the inverse duty ratio of total pause time to total spin-lock time. The paper then claims that the difference $R_{\mathrm{mpfsl,pul}} = R^{(2)}_{1\rho,\mathrm{pul}} - R^{(1)}_{1\rho,\mathrm{pul}}$ between two acquisitions obeying $\Delta\omega^{(1)}/\omega^{(1)}_1 = \Delta\omega^{(2)}/\omega^{(2)}_1$ is free of water-pool relaxation terms, so MPF can be quantified without a $T_1$ map or knowledge of $T_{1a}$ and $T_{2a}$. It further claims that this pulsed strategy reaches higher relative measurement precision than continuous-wave MPF-SL under typical RF hardware and SAR constraints, because the total spin-lock time can be extended by increasing the number of modules. The paper supports these claims with Bloch-McConnell simulations, agarose phantoms with and without manganese doping, an in vivo knee study confirming mono-exponential decay, and liver-fibrosis patients showing rising MPF with fibrosis stage.

Load-bearing premise

The entire closed-form model rests on the transient relation $M_{zb} = f_b(1-\beta)M_{za}$ during each spin-lock pulse, whose derivation is relegated to supporting information and whose validation covers liver-like parameters and two RF settings; if this relation or the mono-exponential relaxation model behind it fails for other tissues or pulse durations, the rate formula and the water-pool-independent MPF map collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MPF maps can be computed from as few as four spin-lock-prepared images, with no $T_1$ map and no water-pool relaxation parameters, simplifying qMT protocols.
  • Total spin-lock duration can be extended by adding modules, raising the relative measurement precision of $R_{\mathrm{mpfsl,pul}}$ and making low-signal macromolecule imaging feasible in the liver and other body regions.
  • The same ratio-matched difference strategy should work under $T_{1a} \neq T_{1b}$ if the corrected expression with an explicit $R_{1b}$ term is used, extending applicability beyond the equal-relaxation assumption.
  • Longer pulsed trains reduce the bias from the mono-exponential approximation, so the measured $R_{\mathrm{mpfsl,pul}}$ converges to a stable value.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transient relation holds beyond liver-like tissues, the same pulsed framework should also estimate $k_{ba}$ or $T_{2b}$ from the shape of the $R_{\mathrm{mpfsl,pul}}$ response, not just $f_b$, since Eq. (15) contains all three parameters.
  • Allowing $T_p$, $T_f$, or the duty ratio to vary across modules could optimize SNR per unit scan time, an extension the paper explicitly leaves open.
  • Because RF amplifier limits are most severe on low-field and body-coil systems, MPF-PSL could make quantitative MT practical at 1.5 T and 0.55 T where continuous-wave spin-lock is often infeasible.
  • A systematic bias study at high $f_b$ (for example cartilage) and at large $T_p$ would reveal how far the exponent approximation behind Eq. (8) extends, and corrections could then be derived.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MPF-PSL, a pulsed spin-lock method for macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) mapping. The sequence consists of n short off-resonance spin-lock pulses of duration Tp separated by free-precession intervals Tf. The authors derive an analytical model in which the pulsed spin-lock relaxation rate is R1ρ,pul = R1ρ + IDR·R1a + (IDR/Tf)·fb·β, and show that the difference of two such rates, acquired with equal Δω/ω1 ratios, cancels water-pool relaxation contributions, yielding an MT-specific rate Rmpfsl,pul. This rate is used to compute MPF without a T1 map. The method is validated with Bloch-McConnell simulations, agarose phantoms with and without MnCl2, a knee cartilage mono-exponentiality study, and a six-patient liver fibrosis pilot.

Significance. If the central approximations hold, the method addresses a real practical limitation of continuous-wave MPF-SL: the inability to apply long spin-lock pulses under typical RF hardware constraints. The analytical framework, the explicit expression for Rmpfsl,pul, and the phantom design that manipulates R1a/R2a independently of MPF are strengths, as is the demonstration of improved relative measurement precision with longer pulse trains. However, the key mathematical step—the simplification leading to Eq. (8)—is validated only for liver-like parameters, and the in vivo clinical evidence is anecdotal. The contribution is potentially significant for clinical qMT, but the central quantitative claim needs further support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3 (Eqs. 7–8)] The transition from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8) neglects the second transient term fbβ exp(−kbat). For the liver parameters used in Fig. 3 (kba ≈ 51 s⁻¹, Tf = 50 ms) this term decays to about 8% of its initial value, so the approximation is reasonable. However, for cartilage and white matter kba is in the range 12–24 s⁻¹ (reference 37), giving exp(−kbaTf) ≈ 0.30–0.55; in this regime the neglected term is comparable in size to the retained fbβ term over the free-precession interval. Because β differs between the two acquisitions, the resulting bias in R1ρ,pul does not cancel in Rmpfsl,pul (Eq. 13) and propagates into Eq. (15). The BM validations in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 do not close this gap: Fig. 3 uses liver parameters only, and Fig. 9 checks mono-exponentiality, not the accuracy of Eq. (12). Please provide quantitative estimates of the bias for cartilage/white-matter parameters or amend the model to include the omitted transient term.
  2. [§2.3 (Eq. 6) and Supporting Information Derivation S2] Equation (6) is the key bridge between the CW spin-lock stage and the free-precession stage, yet its derivation is relegated to Supporting Information Derivation S2, which is not included in the submitted manuscript. As a consequence, the assumptions under which Mzb = fb(1−β)Mza holds—especially the validity at Tp = 10 ms and for off-resonance conditions—cannot be checked by reviewers. Fig. 2 reports agreement for two RF settings, but the parameter values used in that figure are not stated in the text; please state them and include at least a summary of the derivation in the main text, or ensure the Supporting Information is available for review.
  3. [§3.3.5, Fig. 10, §5 Limitations] The in vivo fibrosis study reports only six patients (two per fibrosis category) with no statistical test, effect size, or patient-level MPF values; the figure legend only states 'increase in MPF.' The conclusions in the Abstract and Discussion that the method 'detects collagen deposition' and 'holds potential for differentiating various stages' are stronger than the data support. Please either restrict the claims to feasibility or add formal group comparisons and report the individual values.
  4. [§2.5, Fig. 4] Fig. 4 compares Rmpfsl,pul from Bloch-McConnell simulation with Eq. (15) for liver, cartilage, muscle, and white matter, but no numerical error is reported. Because Eq. (15) is the basis for the quantitative MPF maps presented later, please report the absolute and relative errors for each tissue type, state the acquisition parameters used in the comparison, and specify the range of kba, T2b, and fb for which Eq. (15) is accurate to within a stated tolerance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The word 'spnning' should be 'spanning'.
  2. [Eqs. (6) and (15)] The notation for the MT saturation rate is inconsistent: Eq. (6) uses 'Rrfb' while Eq. (15) uses 'R_rfb'; please unify the notation.
  3. [Eq. (15)] In the first term, the expression 'k2bafb' is ambiguous; please clarify whether it denotes k_ba²·fb or another combination and use consistent superscript/subscript formatting.
  4. [§2.4] The definition of IDR is given just before Eq. (12); it would be helpful to also state explicitly that IDR/Tf = (n−1)/(nTp), since this combination appears in the third term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Self-contained derivation; water-independence is a transparently designed cancellation (Eq. 14) verified by MnCl2 phantoms, and the load-bearing Hou et al. self-citation is independently grounded in Zaiss's eigenvalue approximation.

full rationale

No true circularity is present. The analytic derivation is self-contained: R1ρ,pul (Eq. 12) is obtained by composing the CW spin-lock decay (Eq. 2), the transient pool relationship Mzb = fb(1−β)Mza (Eq. 6, derived in SI Derivation S2 and checked against the Bloch–McConnell numerical solution in Fig. 2), and the free-precession map (Eqs. 7–8, checked in Fig. 3). Each approximation is tested against the numerical solution of the same two-pool model, which is a self-consistency test of the mathematics, not a hidden fit. The water-insensitivity claim is a designed cancellation: Eq. (14) is explicitly chosen so that θ1 = θ2, making Rwater (Eq. 4) identical in the two acquisitions, and the paper states this openly ('we choose the Δω(1), ω(1)1, Δω(2), ω(2)1 to satisfy the following condition'). The residual empirical content — that the full two-pool dynamics contain no additional water coupling beyond Rwater — is verified externally: the MnCl2 phantom experiment (Fig. 7C–E) modulates R1a and R2a at fixed agarose concentration and leaves MPF unchanged, and the BM sensitivity analysis (Fig. 5) independently confirms it. MPF is extracted by fitting the measured Rmpfsl,pul to Eq. (15) with literature kba and T2b; the extracted MPF is then compared with independent proxies (agarose concentration, MnCl2 absence/presence, biopsy-staged fibrosis), so no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The fast four-image estimate (Eq. 16) is derived from the mono-exponential solution (Eq. 11), not from the MPF it later produces. The main load-bearing self-citation is Eq. (15)'s first term, imported from the authors' prior MPF-SL paper (Hou et al., ref 20); however, that expression is rooted in the externally published eigenvalue approximation of Zaiss et al. (ref 32) and was independently validated on phantoms in a peer-reviewed venue, so under the rules it counts as independent evidence and does not raise the score. Genuine weaknesses are present but are correctness risks, not circularity: (i) Eq. (8) drops the fbβ·e^{−kba·Tf} term, and for cartilage/white-matter kba (~12–24 s⁻¹) with Tf = 50 ms, e^{−kba·Tf} ≈ 0.3–0.55, so R1ρ,pul and hence Rmpfsl,pul are biased, with the bias not cancelling between acquisitions; (ii) the in vivo knee study (Fig. 9) validates only mono-exponentiality, not the absolute magnitude predicted by Eq.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory is built on the standard two-pool Bloch-McConnell model plus a new transient-state bridge (Eq. 6) whose derivation is in the Supporting Information. The hand-chosen sequence parameters Tp, Tf, n, and the offset and amplitude settings are free parameters of the method. No new physical entities are postulated; the method is a modification of the pulse sequence and its analytics.

free parameters (5)
  • Tp (spin-lock pulse duration) = 10 ms
    Hand-selected pulse duration; affects beta in Eq. (6) and the hardware/SAR trade-off. Simulated at 5, 10, and 20 ms but not systematically optimized for clinical use.
  • Tf (free precession duration) = 50 ms
    Hand-selected gap length; chosen so that kba*Tf is large enough for the e^{-kba*Tf} term to be neglected in Eq. (8), while keeping breath-hold feasible.
  • n (number of spin-lock modules) = 10 for phantoms and in vivo; up to 40 in knee fitting
    Determines total spin-lock time and relative measurement precision; 10 modules was the fixed clinical choice.
  • Frequency offsets Delta_omega1, Delta_omega2 = 2*pi*800 and 2*pi*3500 rad/s (liver/in vivo); 2*pi*1000 and 2*pi*4500 rad/s (phantoms)
    Selected with the spin-lock amplitudes to satisfy the equal-angle condition Eq. (14) and to be near values found by Bloch-McConnell optimization in Figure S1. Changing these offsets changes Rmpfsl,pul.
  • Spin-lock amplitudes omega1, omega2 = 2*pi*80 and 2*pi*350 rad/s (liver/in vivo); 2*pi*100 and 2*pi*450 rad/s (phantoms)
    Scale with the offsets to keep Delta_omega/omega equal; limited by RF amplifier. These are chosen values, not fitted to tissue data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Two-pool Bloch-McConnell model with pool A (free water) and pool B (macromolecules), exchange k_ab = f_b*k_ba, and MPF = f_b/(1+f_b).
    Section 2.1, Eq. (1). The entire theory and all validations are inside this model; no direct measurement of the model form is provided.
  • domain assumption CW spin-lock magnetization decays mono-exponentially with R1rho = Rwater + Rmt, where Rmt comes from the eigenvalue approximation of Zaiss et al.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)-(3) and Supporting Information Derivation S1. This is the starting point for Eq. (12) and is not re-derived in the main text.
  • domain assumption Free-precession longitudinal dynamics follow Gochberg's first-order Taylor expansion in f_b (Eq. 5).
    Section 2.2, Eq. (5). The small-f_b expansion is used to build Eq. (7) and thus the pulsed-train recursion.
  • ad hoc to paper Transient relationship Mzb = f_b*(1-beta)*Mza with beta = Rrfb/(kba+Rrfb)*(1 - exp(-(Rrfb+kba)*Tp)) in Eq. (6).
    Section 2.3, Eq. (6), derivation in Supporting Information Derivation S2. This is the new bridge connecting spin-lock and free-precession stages; its accuracy outside the tested Tp and tissue parameter range is unverified.
  • domain assumption R1a = R1b is assumed in the main derivation and simulations.
    Section 2.5 and Simulation study 1; Eq. (15) uses this simplification. The Discussion acknowledges recent evidence of different T1a and T1b and offers Eq. (18) as an alternative, but Eq. (18) is not validated.
  • domain assumption The macromolecular pool parameters kba and T2b are constant across subjects and taken from published values (Stanisz 2005).
    Section 2.5 states that published values can be adopted without additional measurements. If kba or T2b changes with fibrosis or liver state, MPF maps are biased, as the authors concede in the Discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative Macromolecular Proton Fraction Imaging using Pulsed Spin-Lock." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AC44KIMA

@misc{pith2026250521853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative Macromolecular Proton Fraction Imaging using Pulsed Spin-Lock},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AC44KIMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21853}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: Recent studies have shown that spin-lock MRI can simplify quantitative magnetization transfer (MT) by eliminating its dependency on water pool parameters, removing the need for a T1 map in macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) quantification. However, its application is often limited by the requirement for long radiofrequency (RF) pulse durations, which are constrained by RF hardware capabilities despite remaining within specific absorption rate (SAR) safety limits. Methods: To address this challenge, we propose a novel method, MPF mapping using pulsed spin-lock (MPF-PSL). MPF-PSL employs a pulsed spin-lock train with intermittent free precession periods, enabling extended total spin-lock durations without exceeding hardware and specific absorption rate limits. A comprehensive analytical framework was developed to model the magnetization dynamics of the two-pool MT system under pulsed spin-lock, demonstrating that MPF-PSL achieves MT-specific quantification while minimizing confounding effects from the water pool. The proposed method is validated with Bloch-McConnell simulations, phantoms, and in vivo studies at 3T. Results: Both Bloch-McConnell simulations and phantom validation demonstrated that MPF-PSL exhibits robust insensitivity to water pool parameters while enabling high-SNR MPF quantification. In vivo validation studies confirmed the method's clinical utility in detecting collagen deposition in patients with liver fibrosis. Conclusion: MPF-PSL presents a practical solution for quantitative MT imaging, with strong potential for clinical applications.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Magnetization trans- fer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo

    Wolff Steven D, Balaban Robert S. Magnetization trans- fer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 1989;10(1):135– 144

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Magnetiza- tion transfer in MRI: a review

    Henkelman RM, Stanisz GJ, Graham SJ. Magnetiza- tion transfer in MRI: a review. NMR in Biomedicine. 2001;14(2):57–64

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Magnetiza- tion transfer ratio and myelin in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain

    Schmierer Klaus, Scaravilli Francesco, Altmann Daniel R, Barker Gareth J, Miller David H. Magnetiza- tion transfer ratio and myelin in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain. Annals of neurology. 2004;56(3):407–415

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Fast whole-brain three-dimensional macromolecular proton fraction mapping in multiple sclerosis

    Yarnykh Vasily L, Bowen James D, Samsonov Alexey, et al. Fast whole-brain three-dimensional macromolecular proton fraction mapping in multiple sclerosis. Radiology. 2015;274(1):210–220

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Magnetization trans- fer MRI in multiple sclerosis

    Filippi Massimo, Agosta Federica. Magnetization trans- fer MRI in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neuroimaging. 2007;17:22S–26S

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Fast macromolecular proton fraction mapping of the human liver in vivo for quantitative assessment of hepatic fibrosis

    Yarnykh Vasily L, Tartaglione Erica V, Ioannou George N. Fast macromolecular proton fraction mapping of the human liver in vivo for quantitative assessment of hepatic fibrosis. NMR in Biomedicine. 2015;28(12):1716– 1725

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Detect- ing Early-Stage Liver Fibrosis Using Macromolecular Proton Fraction Mapping Based on Spin-Lock MRI: Pre- liminary Observations

    Hou Jian, Wong Vincent W-S, Qian Yurui, et al. Detect- ing Early-Stage Liver Fibrosis Using Macromolecular Proton Fraction Mapping Based on Spin-Lock MRI: Pre- liminary Observations. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2023;57(2):485–492

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Quantitative Magnetization EXchange MRI Mea- surement of Liver Fibrosis Model in Rodents

    Wilczynski Ella, Sasson Efrat, Eliav Uzi, Navon Gil, Nevo Uri. Quantitative Magnetization EXchange MRI Mea- surement of Liver Fibrosis Model in Rodents. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2023;57(1):285–295

    work page 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Experimental allergic encephalomyelitis and multi- ple sclerosis: lesion characterization with magnetizatio n transfer imaging

    Dousset Vincent, Grossman Robert I, Ramer Karen N, et al. Experimental allergic encephalomyelitis and multi- ple sclerosis: lesion characterization with magnetizatio n transfer imaging.. Radiology. 1992;182(2):483–491

    1992

  2. [10]

    Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer

    Henkelman R Mark, Huang Xuemei, Xiang Qing-San, Stanisz Greg J, Swanson Scott D, Bronskill Michael J. Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 1993;29(6):759–766

    1993

  3. [11]

    A model for mag- netization transfer in tissues

    Morrison Clare, Mark Henkelman R. A model for mag- netization transfer in tissues. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 1995;33(4):475–482

    1995

  4. [12]

    Pulsed Z-spectroscopic imaging of cross-relaxation parameters in tissues for human MRI: theory and clinical applications

    Yarnykh Vasily L. Pulsed Z-spectroscopic imaging of cross-relaxation parameters in tissues for human MRI: theory and clinical applications. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2002;47(5):929–939

    2002

  5. [13]

    Quantitative imaging of magnetization transfer exchange and relaxation proper- ties in vivo using MRI

    Sled John G, Pike G Bruce. Quantitative imaging of magnetization transfer exchange and relaxation proper- ties in vivo using MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2001;46(5):923–931

    2001

  6. [14]

    Fast macromolecular proton frac- tion mapping from a single off-resonance magnetization transfer measurement

    Yarnykh Vasily L. Fast macromolecular proton frac- tion mapping from a single off-resonance magnetization transfer measurement. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2012;68(1):166–178

    2012

  7. [15]

    Quantitative magne- tization transfer imaging via selective inversion recov- ery with short repetition times

    Gochberg Daniel F, Gore John C. Quantitative magne- tization transfer imaging via selective inversion recov- ery with short repetition times. Magnetic Resonance in 14 Qianxue Shan and Ziqiang Yu et al Medicine. 2007;57(2):437–441

    2007

  8. [16]

    Optimization of selective inversion recovery magnetization transfer imag - ing for macromolecular content mapping in the human brain

    Dortch Richard D, Bagnato Francesca, Gochberg Daniel F, Gore John C, Smith Seth A. Optimization of selective inversion recovery magnetization transfer imag - ing for macromolecular content mapping in the human brain. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2018;80(5):1824– 1835

    2018

  9. [17]

    Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging using balanced SSFP

    Gloor M, Scheffler Klaus, Bieri Oliver. Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging using balanced SSFP. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2008;60(3):691–700

    2008

  10. [18]

    Mag- netization transfer in magnetic resonance fingerprinting

    Hilbert Tom, Xia Ding, Block Kai Tobias, et al. Mag- netization transfer in magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2020;84(1):128–141

    2020

  11. [19]

    Learning-based optimization of acquisition schedule for magnetization transfer contrast MR finger- printing

    Kang Beomgu, Kim Byungjai, Park HyunWook, Heo Hye-Young. Learning-based optimization of acquisition schedule for magnetization transfer contrast MR finger- printing. NMR in Biomedicine. 2022;35(5):e4662

    2022

  12. [20]

    Macromolecular proton fraction mapping based on spin- lock magnetic resonance imaging

    Hou Jian, Wong Vincent Wai-Sun, Jiang Baiyan, et al. Macromolecular proton fraction mapping based on spin- lock magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2020;84(6):3157–3171

    2020

  13. [21]

    Spin-lock based fast whole-brain 3D macromolecular pro- ton fraction mapping of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

    Hou Jian, Cai Zongyou, Chen Weitian, So Tiffany Y. Spin-lock based fast whole-brain 3D macromolecular pro- ton fraction mapping of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):17943

    2024

  14. [22]

    Orientation depen- dence of magnetization transfer parameters in human white matter

    Pampel Andr´ e, M¨ uller Dirk K, Anwander Alfred, Marschner Henrik, M¨ oller Harald E. Orientation depen- dence of magnetization transfer parameters in human white matter. Neuroimage. 2015;114:136–146

    2015

  15. [23]

    Characterization of the orientation dependence of magnetization transfer measures in single and crossing- fiber white matter

    Karan Philippe, Edde Manon, Gilbert Guillaume, Barakovic Muhamed, Magon Stefano, Descoteaux Maxime. Characterization of the orientation dependence of magnetization transfer measures in single and crossing- fiber white matter. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2024;92(5):2207–2221

    2024

  16. [24]

    Orientation- independent quantification of macromolecular proton fraction in tissues with suppression of residual dipolar coupling

    Gao Zijian, Yu Ziqiang, Zhou Ziqin, et al. Orientation- independent quantification of macromolecular proton fraction in tissues with suppression of residual dipolar coupling. NMR in Biomedicine. 2024;:e5293

    2024

  17. [25]

    Pulsed magnetization transfer imaging with body coil trans- mission at 3 Tesla: feasibility and application

    Smith Seth A, Farrell Jonathan AD, Jones Craig K, Reich Daniel S, Calabresi Peter A, Van Zijl Peter CM. Pulsed magnetization transfer imaging with body coil trans- mission at 3 Tesla: feasibility and application. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2006;56(4):866–875

    2006

  18. [26]

    Quantification of pulsed satura- tion transfer at 1.5 T and 3T

    Chan Rachel W, Myrehaug Sten, Stanisz Greg J, Sahgal Arjun, Lau Angus Z. Quantification of pulsed satura- tion transfer at 1.5 T and 3T. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2019;82(5):1684–1699

    2019

  19. [27]

    Towards an analytic solution for pulsed CEST

    Gochberg Daniel F, Does Mark D, Zu Zhongliang, Lank- ford Christopher L. Towards an analytic solution for pulsed CEST. NMR in Biomedicine. 2018;31(5):e3903

    2018

  20. [28]

    A hybrid numeric-analytic solution for pulsed CEST

    Lankford Christopher L, Louie Elizabeth A, Zu Zhongliang, Does Mark D, Gochberg Daniel F. A hybrid numeric-analytic solution for pulsed CEST. NMR in Biomedicine. 2022;35(1):e4610

    2022

  21. [29]

    Imaging amide proton transfer and nuclear overhauser enhance- ment using chemical exchange rotation transfer (CERT)

    Zu Zhongliang, Xu Junzhong, Li Hua, et al. Imaging amide proton transfer and nuclear overhauser enhance- ment using chemical exchange rotation transfer (CERT). Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2014;72(2):471–476

    2014

  22. [30]

    Towards quantification of pulsed spinlock and CEST at clinical MR scanners: an analytical inter- leaved saturation–relaxation (ISAR) approach

    Roeloffs Volkert, Meyer Christian, Bachert Peter, Zaiss Moritz. Towards quantification of pulsed spinlock and CEST at clinical MR scanners: an analytical inter- leaved saturation–relaxation (ISAR) approach. NMR in Biomedicine. 2015;28(1):40–53

    2015

  23. [31]

    Exchange-dependent relax - ation in the rotating frame for slow and intermediate exchange–modeling off-resonant spin-lock and chemi- cal exchange saturation transfer

    Zaiss Moritz, Bachert Peter. Exchange-dependent relax - ation in the rotating frame for slow and intermediate exchange–modeling off-resonant spin-lock and chemi- cal exchange saturation transfer. NMR in Biomedicine. 2013;26(5):507–518

    2013

  24. [32]

    A combined analytical solution for chemical exchange sat- uration transfer and semi-solid magnetization transfer

    Zaiss Moritz, Zu Zhongliang, Xu Junzhong, et al. A combined analytical solution for chemical exchange sat- uration transfer and semi-solid magnetization transfer. NMR in biomedicine. 2015;28(2):217–230

    2015

  25. [33]

    Cross relax- ation and spin diffusion in the proton NMR of hydrated collagen

    Edzes Hommo T, Samulski Edward T. Cross relax- ation and spin diffusion in the proton NMR of hydrated collagen. Nature. 1977;265(5594):521–523

    1977

  26. [34]

    The role of specific side groups and pH in magnetiza- tion transfer in polymers

    Gochberg DF, Kennan RP, Maryanski MJ, Gore JC. The role of specific side groups and pH in magnetiza- tion transfer in polymers. Journal of magnetic resonance. 1998;131(2):191–198

    1998

  27. [35]

    Quantitative imaging of magnetization transfer using multiple selective pulses

    Gochberg Daniel F, Kennan Richard P, Robson Matthew D, Gore John C. Quantitative imaging of magnetization transfer using multiple selective pulses. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1999;41(5):1065–1072

    1999

  28. [36]

    Fast bound pool fraction imaging of the in vivo rat brain: associa- tion with myelin content and validation in the C6 glioma model

    Underhill Hunter R, Rostomily Robert C, Mikheev Andrei M, Yuan Chun, Yarnykh Vasily L. Fast bound pool fraction imaging of the in vivo rat brain: associa- tion with myelin content and validation in the C6 glioma model. Neuroimage. 2011;54(3):2052–2065

    2011

  29. [37]

    T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T

    Stanisz Greg J, Odrobina Ewa E, Pun Joseph, et al. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2005;54(3):507–512

    2005

  30. [38]

    Quantitative chemical exchange sensitive MRI using irradiation with toggling inver- sion preparation

    Jin Tao, Kim Seong-Gi. Quantitative chemical exchange sensitive MRI using irradiation with toggling inver- sion preparation. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2012;68(4):1056–1064

    2012

  31. [39]

    Prob- ing chemical exchange using quantitative spin-lock R1 ρ asymmetry imaging with adiabatic RF pulses

    Jiang Baiyan, Jin Tao, Blu Thierry, Chen Weitian. Prob- ing chemical exchange using quantitative spin-lock R1 ρ asymmetry imaging with adiabatic RF pulses. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2019;82(5):1767–1781

    2019

  32. [40]

    Magneti- zation transfer using inversion recovery during off- resonance irradiation

    Mangia Silvia, De Martino Federico, Liimatainen Timo, Garwood Michael, Michaeli Shalom. Magneti- zation transfer using inversion recovery during off- resonance irradiation. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2011;29(10):1346–1350

    2011

  33. [41]

    Errors in quantitative T1rho imaging and the correction methods

    Chen Weitian. Errors in quantitative T1rho imaging and the correction methods. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery. 2015;5(4):583

    2015

  34. [42]

    Uncertainty-aware self-supervised neural network for liver T 1 ρ mapping with relaxation constraint

    Huang Chaoxing, Qian Yurui, Yu Simon Chun-Ho, et al. Uncertainty-aware self-supervised neural network for liver T 1 ρ mapping with relaxation constraint. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2022;67(22):225019

    2022

  35. [43]

    Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging in human brain at 3 T via selective inversion recovery

    Dortch Richard D, Li KE, Gochberg Daniel F, et al. Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging in human brain at 3 T via selective inversion recovery. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2011;66(5):1346–1352

    2011

  36. [44]

    Unconstrained quantitative magnetization transfer imag- ing: disentangling T1 of the free and semi-solid spin pools

    Assl¨ ander Jakob, Mao Andrew, Marchetto Elisa, et al. Unconstrained quantitative magnetization transfer imag- ing: disentangling T1 of the free and semi-solid spin pools. Qianxue Shan and Ziqiang Yu et al 15 Imaging Neuroscience. 2024;2:1–16

    2024

  37. [45]

    Effects of mag- netization transfer on T1 contrast in human brain white matter

    Gelderen Peter, Jiang Xu, Duyn Jeff H. Effects of mag- netization transfer on T1 contrast in human brain white matter. NeuroImage. 2016;128:85–95

    2016

  38. [46]

    In vivo quantifica- tion of the bound pool T1 in human white matter using the binary spin–bath model of progressive magnetiza- tion transfer saturation

    Helms Gunther, Hagberg Gisela E. In vivo quantifica- tion of the bound pool T1 in human white matter using the binary spin–bath model of progressive magnetiza- tion transfer saturation. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2009;54(23):N529

    2009

  39. [47]

    Understanding aqueous and non-aqueous proton T1 relaxation in brain

    Manning Alan P, MacKay Alex L, Michal Carl A. Understanding aqueous and non-aqueous proton T1 relaxation in brain. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2021;323:106909

    2021

  40. [48]

    Confounding of macro- molecular and paramagnetic tissue content in quantita- tive MTI remedied by explicit estimation of bound pool relaxation

    Samsonov Alexey, Field Aaron S. Confounding of macro- molecular and paramagnetic tissue content in quantita- tive MTI remedied by explicit estimation of bound pool relaxation. Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 2021;:0716

    2021

  41. [49]

    Breath- hold black blood quantitative T1rho imaging of liver using single shot fast spin echo acquisition

    Chen Weitian, Chan Queenie, W´ ang Y ` ı-Xi´ ang J. Breath- hold black blood quantitative T1rho imaging of liver using single shot fast spin echo acquisition. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery. 2016;6(2):168

    2016

  42. [50]

    Sodium and T1 ρ MRI for molecular and diagnostic imaging of articular cartilage

    Borthakur Arijitt, Mellon Eric, Niyogi Sampreet, Witschey Walter, Kneeland J Bruce, Reddy Ravinder. Sodium and T1 ρ MRI for molecular and diagnostic imaging of articular cartilage. NMR in Biomedicine. 2006;19(7):781–821

    2006

  43. [51]

    Numerical solution of the Bloch equations provides insights into the opti- mum design of PARACEST agents for MRI

    Woessner Donald E, Zhang Shanrong, Merritt Matthew E, Sherry A Dean. Numerical solution of the Bloch equations provides insights into the opti- mum design of PARACEST agents for MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2005;53(4):790–799

    2005

  44. [52]

    Rapid quantitative magnetization transfer imaging: Uti- lizing the hybrid state and the generalized Bloch model

    Assl¨ ander Jakob, Gultekin Cem, Mao Andrew, et al. Rapid quantitative magnetization transfer imaging: Uti- lizing the hybrid state and the generalized Bloch model. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2024;91(4):1478–1497

    2024

  45. [53]

    Quantitative Magnetization EXchange MRI Mea- surement of Liver Fibrosis Model in Rodents

    Wilczynski Ella, Sasson Efrat, Eliav Uzi, Navon Gil, Nev o Uri. Quantitative Magnetization EXchange MRI Mea- surement of Liver Fibrosis Model in Rodents. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2023;57(1):285–295

    2023

  46. [54]

    Macromolecular proton fraction as a myelin biomarker: principles, validation, and applications

    Kisel Alena A, Naumova Anna V, Yarnykh Vasily L. Macromolecular proton fraction as a myelin biomarker: principles, validation, and applications. Frontiers in neu- roscience. 2022;16:819912

    2022

  47. [55]

    A study of bipolar disorder using magnetization transfer imaging and voxel-based morphometry

    Bruno SD, Barker GJ, Cercignani M, Symms M, Ron MA. A study of bipolar disorder using magnetization transfer imaging and voxel-based morphometry. Brain. 2004;127(11):2433–2440

    2004

  48. [56]

    Regional magnetization transfer ratio changes in mild cognitive impairment

    Kabani Noor Jehan, Sled John G, Shuper Anita, Chertkow Howard. Regional magnetization transfer ratio changes in mild cognitive impairment. Magnetic Reso- nance in Medicine. 2002;47(1):143–148

    2002

  49. [57]

    Magnetiza- tion transfer histogram analysis of segmented normal- appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis

    Catalaa I, Grossman RI, Kolson DL, et al. Magnetiza- tion transfer histogram analysis of segmented normal- appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis. Radiology. 2000;26:351–355

    2000

  50. [58]

    Modeling pulsed mag- netization transfer

    Portnoy Sharon, Stanisz Greg J. Modeling pulsed mag- netization transfer. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2007;58(1):144–155

    2007

  51. [59]

    Pulsed satura- tion transfer contrast

    Hu Bob S, Conolly Steven M, Wright Graham A, Nishimura Dwight G, Macovski Albert. Pulsed satura- tion transfer contrast. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 1992;26(2):231–240

    1992

  52. [60]

    Rapid quantitation of magnetization transfer using pulsed off-resonance irra- diation and echo planar imaging

    Tyler Damian J, Gowland Penny A. Rapid quantitation of magnetization transfer using pulsed off-resonance irra- diation and echo planar imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2005;53(1):103–109

    2005

  53. [61]

    R1rho relaxation out- side of the fast-exchange limit

    Trott Oleg, Palmer III Arthur G. R1rho relaxation out- side of the fast-exchange limit. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2002;154(1):157–160. SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following supporting information is available as part of the online article: Figure S1. Relationship between R...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.