Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

From just three spin-lock images, a single ratio yields quantitative maps of the dipolar relaxation time T1D and the macromolecular proton fraction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A ratio of dual- to single-frequency spin-lock relaxation rates, RATIO_dosl, maps T1D and MPF from three images.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection T1D mapping via a three-image spin-lock ratio is a genuine speedup over existing ihMT methods, but the fixed-T2b conversion is a real, honestly-flagged caveat that needs a bound before the absolute T1D values carry weight. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.02847 v4 pith:H76EY2R7 submitted 2025-10-03 physics.med-ph

Dipolar order mapping based on spin-lock magnetic resonance imaging

Zijian Gao , Qianxue Shan , Ziqin Zhou , Ziqiang Yu , Weitian Chen This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph
keywords dipolar orderinhomogeneous magnetization transferspin-lock MRIT1D mappingmacromolecular proton fractionmyelin microstructurequantitative magnetization transferrotary echo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a dimensionless ratio, RATIO_dosl, computed from three off-resonance spin-lock prepared images, carries a measure of dipolar order that is largely independent of water relaxation and most magnetization-transfer parameters. If the claim holds, T1D maps—previously requiring long multi-image ihMT acquisitions or MR fingerprinting—can be obtained in about a minute per slice, and the same three images also yield the macromolecular proton fraction (MPF). The authors support the claim with numerical simulations, phantom experiments on a lipid emulsion with strong inhomogeneous magnetization transfer contrast, and test-retest in vivo scans of ten healthy volunteers, reporting white-matter T1D values around 3.70–4.80 ms. A sympathetic reader would take the central contribution to be the reduction of dipolar-order quantification to a single ratio accessible with a standard spin-lock sequence.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the difference between dual-frequency and single-frequency spin-lock relaxation rates defines an ihMT-specific rate R_dosl, and the ratio of R_dosl at two constrained spin-lock settings is a one-to-one function of the dipolar relaxation time T1D under fixed MT parameters. This ratio, RATIO_dosl, is shown by simulation to track T1D across 1–10 ms with low relative error when offset, spin-lock amplitude, and duration are chosen in a favorable range (5 kHz, 500 Hz, 80 ms in vivo). A rotary-echo spin-lock pulse train with a short switch time acts as dual-frequency irradiation and a long switch time as single-frequency irradiation, so both rates are sampled in pr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is RATIO_dosl, the ratio of two R_dosl values, each being the difference between dual- and single-frequency spin-lock relaxation rates. Taking the ratio cancels the water-pool contribution and, with MPF, R1b, T2b, and R held constant, makes the measured quantity a function of T1D alone. A rotary-echo spin-lock pulse chain alternates frequency offset and phase: short switch time (0.5 ms) produces effective dual-frequency irradiation, long switch time (40 ms) produces single-frequency irradiation. T1D is recovered either by inverting the analytical expression or by matching against a simulated dictionary, with a B1 map correcting the actual RF amplitude.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of RATIO_dosl to T1D assumes the MT model parameters MPF, R1b, T2b, and exchange rate R are constant; the paper's own simulations show RATIO_dosl is especially sensitive to T2b, so if T2b varies across subjects or tissue the estimated T1D is biased.

What would settle it

Acquire RATIO_dosl and an independent T1D reference in the same white matter while also estimating T2b from quantitative MT fitting; if the apparent T1D correlates with T2b rather than with the reference, the constant-T2b assumption is falsified. A simpler phantom check: fix a PL161 sample with constant T1D, change the T2b value used in the dictionary, and observe whether the reported T1D moves.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • T1D mapping can be added to a clinical protocol as three spin-lock prepared images, with about one minute acquisition per slice, instead of the eight or more ihMT-weighted images used by earlier quantification schemes.
  • The same acquisition yields MPF from the two dual-frequency images, so macromolecular content and dipolar-order microstructure can be compared voxel-by-voxel without extra scan time.
  • If translated to 3D FSE/TSE readouts, whole-brain T1D/MPF mapping should be feasible in roughly five minutes, making the measure practical for studies of myelination.
  • B1 inhomogeneity, which chiefly biases the line-shape amplitude, can be corrected retrospectively with a B1 map, and B0 offsets of +/-100 Hz have little effect.
  • Simulations indicate that an SNR of about 40 is sufficient to keep the T1D estimate within a few percent bias.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because RATIO_dosl is sensitive to T2b, and T2b is assumed constant, any disease process that changes the macromolecular lineshape would masquerade as a T1D change; testing this would require independent T2b measurement in the same tissue.
  • The method assumes a single T1D component and a dipolar-order fraction of unity; if multi-component dipolar reservoirs are present in myelin, the reported T1D is an effective average rather than a pool-specific value, and a two-component extension would clarify the interpretation.
  • The orientation dependence of the spin-lock ihMT signal is left open; a simple check would be to rotate a fixed anisotropic phantom or excised nerve relative to B0 and see whether estimated T1D shifts.
  • Since MPF and T1D show different contrast in the maps, the ratio may provide an independent axis for tissue classification; one could test empirically whether the joint (MPF, T1D) pair separates demyelinating lesions from normal white matter better than either alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a spin-lock MRI method for quantitative mapping of the dipolar relaxation time T1D, using a ratio RATIO_dosl built from differences between dual-frequency and single-frequency spin-lock relaxation rates. The authors derive an approximate analytical expression (Eq. 10), validate it against numerical Bloch–McConnell–Provotorov simulations (Fig. 3), test the method in agar and PL161 phantoms, and demonstrate in vivo joint T1D and MPF mapping in ten healthy volunteers using only three spin-lock prepared images. Reported mean white-matter T1D values are approximately 3.70–4.80 ms. The paper includes B1 correction, two T1D estimation routes (analytical and dictionary matching), and test–retest acquisitions. The central claim is that this three-image protocol provides clinically feasible simultaneous T1D and MPF quantification.

Significance. If the claim holds, the method is a meaningful step toward fast quantitative ihMT imaging: it replaces multi-image ihMT and MRF T1D acquisitions with a short spin-lock protocol, and it simultaneously gives MPF. The paper has tangible strengths: the analytical approximation is compared with the full numerical solution, the code is publicly available, B1 correction is incorporated, and phantom and in vivo demonstrations are included. However, the quantitative T1D values rest on the assumption that T2b and R are fixed across tissue and subjects; this is explicitly acknowledged in the paper but not bounded. The three-image ratio also requires a derivation that is not fully clear as printed. These issues affect the quantitative biomarker claim, so the contribution is promising but not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4.3 / Fig. 4(b)] The conversion from RATIO_dosl to T1D fixes T2b=9.7 μs, obtained from a single volunteer's Z-spectrum fit, and uses this value for all subjects. Fig. 4(b) shows pronounced sensitivity of RATIO_dosl to T2b, and the robustness study in Sec. 3.3.2.2 deliberately varies R1b, R, and MPF but excludes T2b. The Discussion acknowledges this. This is a load-bearing limitation: if T2b varies modestly across subjects or tissue, the reported 3.70–4.80 ms range could be biased without any stated uncertainty. Please supply a quantitative bias analysis over a plausible T2b range, or measure/correct T2b on a per-subject basis, before the absolute T1D values are presented as tissue biomarkers.
  2. [Eq. (10)-(11), Sec. 3.1] R_dosl is defined as a difference between dual-frequency and single-frequency spin-lock relaxation rates. However, the printed Eq. (10) and Eq. (11) use the same single-frequency image, R1ρ^single(1), in both the numerator and the denominator: RATIO_dosl = (R1ρ^dual(1)-R1ρ^single(1))/(R1ρ^dual(2)-R1ρ^single(1)). Since the single-frequency term in Eq. (9) depends on Δω_s and ω1_s, and condition 2 uses different offsets/powers, it is not obvious that this three-image form equals the intended ratio R_dosl,1/R_dosl,2. The step from Eq. (9) to Eq. (10) should be shown in full or the cancellation must be justified explicitly. If the cancellation does not hold, the method requires a fourth image and the central 'three images' claim needs revision.
  3. [Sec. 3.4.3 / Table 2 / Discussion] The dictionary parameters (MPF=13.6%, R=20 s−1, T2b=9.7 μs) are determined from one volunteer and then applied to all ten volunteers. No in vivo comparison with an independent T1D quantification method (e.g., the multi-ihMTR approach of Varma et al. or the MRF approach of West et al.) is made on the same subjects; the Discussion states that precise validation of true T1D remains challenging. Since the quantitative claim is a specific T1D range, a direct cross-method comparison or a histology-based calibration would materially support the result. At minimum, the sensitivity of the final T1D estimates to the dictionary parameters should be quantified beyond the existing R1b/R/MPF robustness study.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'approcah' should be 'approach'.
  2. [Sec. 3.4.2] The sentence 'an independe nce R1 maps acquisition' contains a spacing typo and the R1 mapping method is not described; please specify the sequence used.
  3. [Eq. (11)] The notation M_a^1, M_a^2, M_s^1, and M_Tog is used without a clear definition of which images correspond to which symbols. Please spell this out explicitly, especially the role of the magnetization-reset image.
  4. [Table 2] In the provided manuscript text, Table 2 appears as a caption without the actual numeric entries. The table must be populated so values can be inspected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: T1D is obtained by inverting a forward model; the fixed-T2b conversion is a calibration limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central claimed result — T1D maps from RATIO_dosl — is a standard model-based inversion. RATIO_dosl is computed from three spin-lock prepared images (Eq. 11), and T1D is then solved from Eq. 10 or matched against a dictionary generated by integrating the Bloch-McConnell-Provotorov equations (Eqs. 1–5) with T1D as an input. T1D is not used to define RATIO_dosl, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The MT parameters (MPF, R1b, T2b, R) used in the conversion are fixed from literature or from a single volunteer's Z-spectrum fit; this is calibration, not a fit of the quantity being predicted, and the paper explicitly discloses the T2b sensitivity (Fig. 4b; Sec. 3.3.2.2; Discussion: 'we treated the lineshape parameter T2b as a constant... RATIO_dosl is sensitive to this parameter'). Self-citations to prior spin-lock MPF work (refs 23, 26–28) provide the acquisition strategy but are not used as a uniqueness theorem or to define the T1D relationship; the T1D forward model is validated against exact numerical simulation of the full equations. One non-circular caveat: Eq. 11 as typeset appears to contain a typographical error that would make the first log term vanish; if present in the implementation it would be a correctness problem, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and the acknowledged robustness limitation does not amount to circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inversion of RATIO_dosl to T1D depends on fixed MT pool parameters (T2b, R, R1b, MPF) and on structural assumptions including f_D=1, super-Lorentzian lineshape, and the least-negative-eigenvalue approximation. These are imported from literature or set by hand rather than derived in the paper. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • T2b (MT lineshape parameter) = 9.7 µs (in vivo), 10 µs (agar), 17 µs (PL161)
    Fixed in the dictionary/analytical conversion; Fig. 4(b) shows RATIO_dosl is sensitive to T2b, so this is a load-bearing choice.
  • R (exchange rate) = 20 s−1 (in vivo), 210 s−1 (agar), 46 s−1 (PL161)
    Assumed constant; simulations show mild sensitivity to R, but variations were not tested for T2b.
  • R1b (MT pool longitudinal relaxation rate) = 2.9 Hz (in vivo), 1 Hz (agar), 5 Hz (PL161)
    Fixed from literature or a single volunteer's Z-spectrum fit; simulations show low sensitivity.
  • MPF (macromolecular pool fraction) = 13.6% (in vivo dictionary), 2% agar, 15% PL161
    Used as a fixed input for T1D dictionary generation (Sec. 3.4.3); RATIO_dosl is nearly insensitive to MPF in simulations.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Two-pool Bloch-McConnell-Provotorov model with a dipolar reservoir (Eq. 1–4).
    The entire theory assumes a separate dipolar reservoir coupled to the MT pool; if this description is wrong, RATIO_dosl's interpretation fails.
  • domain assumption Dipolar order fraction f_D = 1.
    Stated in Sec. 2: 'we assume the fraction of dipolar order f_D=1'. If f_D < 1, dual-frequency irradiation does not fully suppress the dipolar term.
  • domain assumption Super-Lorentzian lineshape for MT pool absorption.
    Sec. 2: 'we use a super-Lorentzian lineshape model in this study'. This governs R_rfb and hence the ratio.
  • domain assumption R1rho is governed by the least negative eigenvalue of the system matrix.
    Sec. 2 (Eq. 6–7) and Sec. 5 argue this is robust at short TSL when Δω ≫ ω1; if multi-exponential decay is significant, the mono-exponential model biases T1D.
  • domain assumption MT model parameters T2b, R, and R1b are constant across tissue.
    Sec. 3.4.3: 'we assumed that the MT model parameters (MPF, R1b, T2b, and R) remained constant'. This is required to invert RATIO_dosl for T1D.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dipolar order mapping based on spin-lock magnetic resonance imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H76EY2R7

@misc{pith2026251002847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dipolar order mapping based on spin-lock magnetic resonance imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H76EY2R7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.02847}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Purpose: Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) effect reflects dipolar order with a dipolar relaxation time ($T_{1D}$), specific to motion-restricted macromolecules. We aim to quantify $T_{1D}$ using spin-lock MRI technique. Methods: In the proposed method, we introduce a $T_{1D}$-specific ratio, denoted as $RATIO_{dosl}$. This ratio is derived from the distinct relaxation rate $R_{dosl}$, calculated as the difference between dual-frequency relaxation $R_{1\rho}^{dual}$ and single-frequency $R_{1\rho}^{single}$ relaxation measurements. A novel rotary-echo spin-lock sequence was developed to enable dual-frequency spin-lock acquisition. We established a framework to estimate $T_{1D}$, as well as the macromolecular pool fraction (MPF) map. The proposed approach was validated via numerical simulations, phantom studies, and demonstrated in vivo in human white matter. Results: Simulations revealed the high sensitivity of $RATIO_{dosl}$ to $T_{1D}$, and substantiated the accuracy and robustness of the proposed methods. Phantom experiments demonstrated robust ihMT contrast and confirmed the capability of $T_{1D}$ quantification via $RATIO_{dosl}$. In vivo studies supported the clinical viability of this approcah, achieving simultaneous $T_{1D}$ and MPF mapping using only three spin-lock prepared images. Across ten healthy volunteers, the mean white matter $T_{1D}$ ranged from approximately 3.70 to 4.80 ms. Conclustion: We propose a novel method for $T_{1D}$ quantification based on spin-lock MRI. By requiring only three contrast-prepared images, this technique provides a promising pathway for robust, rapid, and simultaneous $T_{1D}$ and MPF quantification with fewer confounds

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.02847 by Qianxue Shan, Weitian Chen, Zijian Gao, Ziqiang Yu, Ziqin Zhou.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Workflow of the 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 calculation. In Step 1, 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅dosl is calculated from three spin-lock prepared images, 𝑀𝑀(1) , 𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑 (1) , and 𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑 (2) . In Step 2, 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 is derived from the 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅dosl values. An MPF map can be obtained from 𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑 (1) and 𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑 (2) in an optional step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between the approximated analytical 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and its exact numerical solution. (a) The relationship between 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and Δ𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑(1) /2𝜋𝜋 (2-7kHz) at a fixed 𝜔𝜔1 d(1) /2𝜋𝜋 of 500 Hz. For each 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 (2, 4, 6, 8 ms), the approximate results (markers) closely match the numerical solution curves (solid lines). (b) The relationship between 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝜔𝜔1 d(1) /2𝜋𝜋 (200–800 H… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The relationship between 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 at fixed 𝜔𝜔1 𝑑𝑑(1) /2𝜋𝜋 = 500Hz with selected Δ𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑(1) /2𝜋𝜋 = 5,6, and 7 kHz. Approximate results (markers) closely match numerical solutions (solid lines) over 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 = 1–10 ms. For all Δ𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑(1) values, 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 increases with 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 , confirming the high sensitivity of 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 to 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷. (b) The relationship between 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation of the accuracy of 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 estimation as a function of spin-lock pulse parameters. (a) Estimated 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷versus resonance frequency offset (Δ𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑(1) /2𝜋𝜋, 2–7 kHz) at fixed TSL = 80 ms and selected spin-lock field strength 𝜔𝜔1 d(1) /2𝜋𝜋 values of 300, 500, and 700 Hz. (b) Estimated 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷versus spin-lock field strength (𝜔𝜔1 d(1) /2𝜋𝜋, 200–800 Hz) at fixed TSL = 80 ms and selected Δ𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑(1) /2𝜋𝜋 values … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Robustness of 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 to 𝐵𝐵0 and 𝐵𝐵1 inhomogeneity, displaying sensitivity to 𝐵𝐵0 offsets (−100 to 100 Hz) and 𝐵𝐵1 scaling factors (0.7 to 1.3 n.u.). (b) Robustness to SNR: a comparison of analytical estimation versus dictionary matching for 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷. The plot shows the median estimate and relative bias compared to the ground-truth 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷= 6.2ms across an SNR range of 20–100. Table1. Summary of r… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of phantom studies. (a) 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 and MPF maps. (b) 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 map. The first column displays agar phantoms with concentrations of 1%, 2%, 3%, and 4% (from top to bottom); the second column displays PL161 phantoms with concentrations of 4%, 8%, 12%, and 16% (from top to bottom). (c)–(d) Bar plots of 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 for the agar and PL161 phantoms, respectively. (e)–(f) Corresponding b… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Representative results from one volunteer. (a) 𝑇𝑇1-weighted image of the acquired slices. (b) Bundle segmentation showing 16 major white matter fiber bundles. (c) MPF maps derived from MPF-SL. (d) 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 maps. (e)–(f) 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 maps obtained via analytical estimation and dictionary matching, respectively, with 𝐵𝐵1 correction. (g)–(h) Corresponding 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 maps obtained via analytical estimation and di… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (Maurice) Goldman

    M. (Maurice) Goldman. Spin Temperature and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Solids. Clarendon Press; 1970

    1970

  2. [2]

    ≈ 𝑅𝑅. Thus Eq. (8) simplifies to: 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝑅𝑅1𝜌𝜌 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑅𝑅1𝜌𝜌 𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 = 𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑 − 𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑 = 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅(1 − 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏) � 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏 𝑑𝑑 𝑅𝑅+𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏 𝑑𝑑 − 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅(𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏 𝑠𝑠 �∆𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝐷 � 2 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷+1)+𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏 𝑠𝑠 � (9) To further improve the robustness of the calculation of 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 , we introduce a variable, 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , obtained by measuring ...

    2016

  3. [3]

    Modeling magnetization transfer for biological -like systems using a semi-solid pool with a super-Lorentzian lineshape and dipolar reservoir

    Morrison C, Stanisz G, Henkelman RM. Modeling magnetization transfer for biological -like systems using a semi-solid pool with a super-Lorentzian lineshape and dipolar reservoir. J Magn Reson B. 1995;108(2):103-113. doi:10.1006/jmrb.1995.1111

    arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    Transient Decay of Longitudinal Magnetization in Heterogeneous Spin Systems under Selective Saturation

    Yeung HN, Adler RS, Swanson SD. Transient Decay of Longitudinal Magnetization in Heterogeneous Spin Systems under Selective Saturation. IV . Reformulation of the Spin- Bath- Model Equations by the Redfield -Provotorov Theory. J Magn Reson A . 1994;106(1):37- 45. doi:10.1006/jmra.1994.1004

    arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    inhomogeneous

    Manning AP, Chang KL, MacKay AL, Michal CA. The physical mechanism of “inhomogeneous” magnetization transfer MRI. J Magn Reson. 2017;274:125-136. doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2016.11.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2016.11.013 2017

  6. [6]

    Magnetization transfer from inhomogeneously broadened lines: A potential marker for myelin

    Varma G, Duhamel G, de Bazelaire C, Alsop DC. Magnetization transfer from inhomogeneously broadened lines: A potential marker for myelin. Magn Reson Med. 2015;73(2):614 -622. doi:10.1002/mrm.25174

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.25174 2015

  7. [7]

    Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging: Concepts and directions for further development

    Alsop DC, Ercan E, Girard OM, et al. Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging: Concepts and directions for further development. NMR Biomed. 2023;36(6):e4808. doi:10.1002/nbm.4808

    work page doi:10.1002/nbm.4808 2023

  8. [8]

    In vivo measurement of a new source of contrast, the dipolar relaxation time, T1D, using a modified inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) sequence

    Varma G, Girard OM, Prevost VH, Grant AK, Duhamel G, Alsop DC. In vivo measurement of a new source of contrast, the dipolar relaxation time, T1D, using a modified inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) sequence. Magn Reson Med. 2017;78(4):1362- 1372. 19 doi:10.1002/mrm.26523

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.26523 2017

  9. [9]

    A comparison of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer, myelin volume fraction, and diffusion tensor imaging measures in healthy children

    Geeraert BL, Lebel RM, Mah AC, et al. A comparison of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer, myelin volume fraction, and diffusion tensor imaging measures in healthy children. NeuroImage. 2018;182:343-350. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.019 2018

  10. [10]

    Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Inhomogeneous Magnetization Transfer (ihMT) MRI for Multiple Sclerosis

    Van Obberghen E, Mchinda S, le Troter A, et al. Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Inhomogeneous Magnetization Transfer (ihMT) MRI for Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol . 2018;39(4):634-641. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5563

    work page doi:10.3174/ajnr.a5563 2018

  11. [11]

    𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 maps were then obtained from 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅dosl using both analytical 13 estimation and dictionary matching method for the in vivo study, respectively

    Prior to this calculation, all spin -lock prepared images were smoothed using a mean filter with a kernel size of 4 to reduce noise. 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 maps were then obtained from 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅dosl using both analytical 13 estimation and dictionary matching method for the in vivo study, respectively. The dictionary was generated over a 𝑇𝑇1𝐷𝐷 range of 0 to 30 ms (step si...

  12. [12]

    Quantitative myelin imaging with MRI and PET: an overview of techniques and their validation status

    van der Weijden CWJ, Biondetti E, Gutmann IW, et al. Quantitative myelin imaging with MRI and PET: an overview of techniques and their validation status. Brain J Neurol. 2023;146(4):1243-

    2023

  13. [13]

    T1D-weighted ihMT imaging – Part I

    Hertanu A, Soustelle L, Le Troter A, et al. T1D-weighted ihMT imaging – Part I. Isolation of long- and short -T1D components by T1D -filtering. Magn Reson Med. 2022;87(5):2313 -2328. doi:10.1002/mrm.29139

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29139 2022

  14. [14]

    Interpretation of magnetization transfer from inhomogeneously broadened lines (ihMT) in tissues as a dipolar order effect within motion restricted molecules

    Varma G, Girard OM, Prevost VH, Grant AK, Duhamel G, Alsop DC. Interpretation of magnetization transfer from inhomogeneously broadened lines (ihMT) in tissues as a dipolar order effect within motion restricted molecules. J Magn Reson. 2015;260:67- 76. doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2015.08.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2015.08.024 2015

  15. [15]

    Optimization of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) MRI contrast for preclinical studies using dipolar relaxation time (T1D) filtering

    Prevost V h., Girard O m., Mchinda S, Varma G, Alsop D c., Duhamel G. Optimization of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) MRI contrast for preclinical studies using dipolar relaxation time (T1D) filtering. NMR Biomed. 2017;30(6):e3706. doi:10.1002/nbm.3706

    work page doi:10.1002/nbm.3706 2017

  16. [16]

    Reproducibility of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT): A test -retest, multi -site study

    Zhang L, Chen T, Tian H, et al. Reproducibility of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT): A test -retest, multi -site study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;57:243 -249. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2018.11.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mri.2018.11.010 2019

  17. [17]

    T1D -weighted ihMT imaging – Part II

    Hertanu A, Soustelle L, Buron J, et al. T1D -weighted ihMT imaging – Part II. Investigating the long- and short-T1D components correlation with myelin content. Comparison with R1 and the macromolecular proton fraction. Magn Reson Med. 2022;87(5):2329 -2346. doi:10.1002/mrm.29140

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29140 2022

  18. [18]

    An inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) quantification method robust to B1 and T1 variations in magnetization prepared acquisitions

    Varma G, Fanny M, Girard O, Duhamel G, Alsop D. An inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) quantification method robust to B1 and T1 variations in magnetization prepared acquisitions. ISMRM 27th Annual Meeting, Montreal, 2019, p4911

    2019

  19. [19]

    Steady‐state imaging with inhomogeneous magnetization transfer contrast using multiband radiofrequency pulses

    Malik SJ, Teixeira RPAG, West DJ, Wood TC, Hajnal JV . Steady‐state imaging with inhomogeneous magnetization transfer contrast using multiband radiofrequency pulses. Magn Reson Med. 2020;83(3):935-949. doi:10.1002/mrm.27984

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.27984 2020

  20. [20]

    Myelin deficits in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder: An inhomogeneous magnetization transfer study

    Hou G, Lai W, Jiang W, et al. Myelin deficits in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder: An inhomogeneous magnetization transfer study. Neurosci Lett . 2021;750:135768. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2021.135768 20

    arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Reduced myelin density in unmedicated major depressive disorder: An inhomogeneous magnetization transfer MRI study

    Chen G, Fu S, Chen P, et al. Reduced myelin density in unmedicated major depressive disorder: An inhomogeneous magnetization transfer MRI study. J Affect Disord . 2022;300:114- 120. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.111

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.111 2022

  22. [22]

    The development of brain white matter microstructure

    Lebel C, Deoni S. The development of brain white matter microstructure. NeuroImage . 2018;182:207-218. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.097

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.097 2018

  23. [23]

    An MR fingerprinting approach for quantitative inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging

    West DJ, Cruz G, Teixeira RPAG, et al. An MR fingerprinting approach for quantitative inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2022;87(1):220 -235. doi:10.1002/mrm.28984

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.28984 2022

  24. [24]

    Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) imaging reveals variable recovery profiles of active MS lesions according to size and localization

    Soustelle L, Mchinda S, Hertanu A, et al. Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) imaging reveals variable recovery profiles of active MS lesions according to size and localization. Imaging Neurosci. 2024;2:imag-2-00235. doi:10.1162/imag_a_00235

    work page doi:10.1162/imag_a_00235 2024

  25. [25]

    Quantitative macromolecular proton fraction imaging using pulsed spin-lock

    Shan Q, Yu Z, Jiang B, et al. Quantitative macromolecular proton fraction imaging using pulsed spin-lock. Magn Reson Med. 2025. doi:10.1002/mrm.70021

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.70021 2025

  26. [26]

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

    Hou J, Wong VW, Jiang B, et al. Macromolecular proton fraction mapping based on spin‐lock magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2020;84(6):3157-3171. doi:10.1002/mrm.28362

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.28362 2020

  27. [27]

    Detecting Early-Stage Liver Fibrosis Using Macromolecular Proton Fraction Mapping Based on Spin -Lock MRI: Preliminary Observations

    Hou J, Wong VWS, Qian Y , et al. Detecting Early-Stage Liver Fibrosis Using Macromolecular Proton Fraction Mapping Based on Spin -Lock MRI: Preliminary Observations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;57(2):485-492. doi:10.1002/jmri.28308

    work page doi:10.1002/jmri.28308 2023

  28. [28]

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

    Hou J, Cai Z, Chen W, So TY . Spin- lock based fast whole -brain 3D macromolecular proton fraction mapping of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Sci Rep . 2024;14(1):17943. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67445-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67445-4 2024

  29. [29]

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

    Gao Z, Yu Z, Zhou Z, et al. Orientation- independent quantification of macromolecular proton fraction in tissues with suppression of residual dipolar coupling. NMR Biomed. 2025;38(1):e5293. doi:10.1002/nbm.5293

    work page doi:10.1002/nbm.5293 2025

  30. [30]

    Orientation-independent magnetization transfer imaging of brain white matter

    Gao Z, Zhou Z, Yu Z, et al. Orientation-independent magnetization transfer imaging of brain white matter. NeuroImage. 2025;320:121456. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121456

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    R1 ρ Relaxation outside of the Fast -Exchange Limit

    Trott O, Palmer AG. R1 ρ Relaxation outside of the Fast -Exchange Limit. J Magn Reson . 2002;154(1):157-160. doi:10.1006/jmre.2001.2466

    arXiv 2002

  32. [32]

    A Model for Magnetization Transfer in Tissues

    Morrison C, Mark Henkelman R. A Model for Magnetization Transfer in Tissues. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33(4):475-482. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910330404

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.1910330404 1995

  33. [33]

    A combined analytical solution for chemical exchange saturation transfer and semi-solid magnetization transfer: AN ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FOR CEST AND MT

    Zaiss M, Zu Z, Xu J, et al. A combined analytical solution for chemical exchange saturation transfer and semi-solid magnetization transfer: AN ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FOR CEST AND MT. NMR Biomed. 2015;28(2):217-230. doi:10.1002/nbm.3237 21

    work page doi:10.1002/nbm.3237 2015

  34. [34]

    Unconstrained quantitative magnetization transfer imaging: Disentangling T1 of the free and semi-solid spin pools

    Assländer J, Mao A, Marchetto E, et al. Unconstrained quantitative magnetization transfer imaging: Disentangling T1 of the free and semi-solid spin pools. Imaging Neurosci. 2024;2:1-16. doi:10.1162/imag_a_00177

    work page doi:10.1162/imag_a_00177 2024

  35. [35]

    Fast macromolecular proton fraction mapping from a single off‐resonance magnetization transfer measurement

    Yarnykh VL. Fast macromolecular proton fraction mapping from a single off‐resonance magnetization transfer measurement. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68(1):166- 178. doi:10.1002/mrm.23224

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.23224 2012

  36. [36]

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

    Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, et al. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(3):507-512. doi:10.1002/mrm.20605

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.20605 2005

  37. [37]

    TractSeg - Fast and accurate white matter tract segmentation

    Wasserthal J, Neher P, Maier -Hein KH. TractSeg - Fast and accurate white matter tract segmentation. NeuroImage. 2018;183:239-253. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.070

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.070 2018

  38. [38]

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

    Yarnykh VL. Pulsed Z‐spectroscopic imaging of cross‐relaxation parameters in tissues for human MRI: Theory and clinical applications. Magn Reson Med . 2002;47(5):929 -939. doi:10.1002/mrm.10120

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.10120 2002

  39. [39]

    Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer in spoiled gradient echo MRI sequences

    Sled JG, Pike GB. Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer in spoiled gradient echo MRI sequences. J Magn Reson. 2000;145(1):24-36. doi:10.1006/jmre.2000.2059

    arXiv 2000

  40. [40]

    Differentiation of brain tumor-related edema based on 3D T1rho imaging

    Villanueva-Meyer JE, Barajas RF, Mabray MC, et al. Differentiation of brain tumor-related edema based on 3D T1rho imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2017;91:88-92. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.03.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.03.022 2017

  41. [41]

    3D Quantitative Imaging of T1rho and T2

    Chen W, Takahashi A, Han E. 3D Quantitative Imaging of T1rho and T2. ISMRM 19th Annu Meet Montr 2011 P231

    2011

  42. [42]

    Variability of CubeQuant T1ρ, quantitative DESS T2, and cones sodium MRI in knee cartilage

    Jordan CD, McWalter EJ, Monu UD, et al. Variability of CubeQuant T1ρ, quantitative DESS T2, and cones sodium MRI in knee cartilage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage . 2014;22(10):1559- 1567. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2014.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.joca.2014.06.001 2014

  43. [43]

    Orientation dependence of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer and dipolar order relaxation rate in phospholipid bilayers

    Morris SR, Frederick R, MacKay AL, Laule C, Michal CA. Orientation dependence of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer and dipolar order relaxation rate in phospholipid bilayers. J Magn Reson. 2022;338:107205. doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2022.107205 22 Figure and Table Figure 1. (a) Dual-frequency spin-lock pulse sequence with a short switch time 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 (shorter than ...

    arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    MRI assessment of multiple dipolar relaxation time (T1D ) components in biological tissues interpreted with a generalized inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) model

    Carvalho VND, Hertanu A, Grélard A, et al. MRI assessment of multiple dipolar relaxation time (T1D ) components in biological tissues interpreted with a generalized inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) model. J Magn Reson . 2020;311:106668. doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2019.106668

    arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Interpretation of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer in myelin water using a four -pool model with dipolar reservoirs

    Lam MH, Novoselova M, Yung A, et al. Interpretation of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer in myelin water using a four -pool model with dipolar reservoirs. Magn Reson Med. 2025;94(1):278-292. doi:10.1002/mrm.30465

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.30465 2025

  46. [1266]

    doi:10.1093/brain/awac436

    work page doi:10.1093/brain/awac436

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.