Scientific Publications by FDA Staff

IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2016 Aug;63(8):1591-601

Assessing the electromagnetic fields generated by a radiofrequency MRI body coil at 64 MHz: defeaturing versus accuracy.

Lucano E, Liberti M, Mendoza GG, Lloyd T, Iacono MI, Apollonio F, Wedan S, Kainz W, Angelone LM

GOAL: This study aims at a systematic assessment of five computational models of a birdcage coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with respect to accuracy and computational cost. METHODS: The models were implemented using the same geometrical model and numerical algorithm, but different driving methods (i.e., coil "defeaturing"). The defeatured models were labeled as: specific (S2), generic (G32, G16), and hybrid (H16, [Formula: see text]). The accuracy of the models was evaluated using the "symmetric mean absolute percentage error" ("SMAPE"), by comparison with measurements in terms of frequency response, as well as electric ( ||-->E||) and magnetic ( || -->B ||) field magnitude. RESULTS: All the models computed the || -->B || within 35% of the measurements, only the S2, G32, and H16 were able to accurately model the ||-->E|| inside the phantom with a maximum SMAPE of 16%. Outside the phantom, only the S2 showed a SMAPE lower than 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that assessing the accuracy of || -->B || based only on comparison along the central longitudinal line of the coil can be misleading. Generic or hybrid coils - when properly modeling the currents along the rings/rungs - were sufficient to accurately reproduce the fields inside a phantom while a specific model was needed to accurately model ||-->E|| in the space between coil and phantom. SIGNIFICANCE: Computational modeling of birdcage body coils is extensively used in the evaluation of radiofrequency-induced heating during MRI. Experimental validation of numerical models is needed to determine if a model is an accurate representation of a physical coil.