METHODS: Such activity is recorded through various neuroimaging techniques like fMRI, EEG, MEG etc. EEG signals based localization is termed as EEG source localization. The source localization problem is defined by two complementary problems; the forward problem and the inverse problem. The forward problem involves the modeling how the electromagnetic sources cause measurement in sensor space, while the inverse problem refers to the estimation of the sources (causes) from observed data (consequences). Usually, this inverse problem is ill-posed. In other words, there are many solutions to the inverse problem that explains the same data. This ill-posed problem can be finessed by using prior information within a Bayesian framework. This research work discusses source reconstruction for EEG data using a Bayesian framework. In particular, MSP, LORETA and MNE are compared.
RESULTS: The results are compared in terms of variational free energy approximation to model evidence and in terms of variance accounted for in the sensor space. The results are taken for real time EEG data and synthetically generated EEG data at an SNR level of 10dB.
CONCLUSION: In brief, it was seen that MSP has the highest evidence and lowest localization error when compared to classical models. Furthermore, the plausibility and consistency of the source reconstruction speaks to the ability of MSP technique to localize active brain sources.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five participants underwent MRE as an initial investigation or follow-up for inflammatory bowel disease. A systematic sampling method was used to divide the participants into three different groups: group 1 received 6.7% mannitol concentration, group 2 received 3.3% mannitol concentration and group 3 received pineapple juice as an oral contrast agent during their MRE examination. The degree of bowel distension on MRE images was assessed by a radiologist by measuring the bowel diameter from inner wall to inner wall at specified levels, while qualitative analysis was evaluated based on the presence of artefacts. All patients were asked to score their acceptance of the oral contrast and were asked about side effects such as diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and vomiting.
RESULTS: All patients were able to completely ingest 1.5L of oral contrast. The mean diameter of bowel distension was 2.1cm in patients who received 6.7% mannitol concentration, 2.0cm in patients who received 3.3% mannitol concentration and 1.6 cm in patients who received pineapple juice. Twothirds of patients who received 6.7% mannitol and 3.3% mannitol solutions had good-quality MRE images, but 68% of patients who received pineapple juice had poor-quality MRE images. Twenty-four patients (96%) who received pineapple juice rated it as slightly acceptable and acceptable but only 12 patients (48%) who received 6.7% mannitol solution rated it as slightly acceptable and acceptable. Eighty-eight percent of patients who received 6.7% mannitol solution experienced at least one form of side effect as compared to 44% of patients who received 3.3% mannitol solution and 18% of patients who received pineapple juice.
CONCLUSION: Optimum small bowel distension and good image quality can be achieved using 3.3% mannitol concentration as an oral contrast agent. Increase in mannitol concentration does not result in significant improvement of small bowel distension or image quality but is instead related to poorer patient acceptance and increased side effects. Pineapple juice is more palatable than mannitol and produces satisfactory small bowel distension. However, the small bowel distension is less uniform when using pineapple juice with a considerable presence of artefacts. Mannitol, 3.3% concentration, is therefore recommended as an endoluminal contrast agent for bowel in MRE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen (18) participants who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were scanned using a standard non-contrast MRI shoulder protocol including the PDFS pulse sequence and the PROPELLER PDFS pulse sequence using a small flex coil and a dedicated shoulder coil. Two experienced musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists evaluated and graded the presence of artifacts on the MR images and the SNR and CNR were measured quantitatively.
RESULTS: The non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test revealed a significant reduction in motion and pulsation artifacts between the PROPELLER PDFS pulse sequence and the standard PDFS pulse sequence. In addition, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test revealed that the mean rank of SNR for the standard sequence was statistically significant when compared to the PROPELLER sequence for both coil types. The CNR of the PROPELLER sequence was statistically significant between fat-fluid, bone-fluid, bonetendon, bone-muscle, and muscle-fluid when using SFC and DSC.
CONCLUSION: This study proved that the PROPELLER-PDFS pulse sequence effectively eliminates motion and pulsation artifacts, regardless of the coils utilised. The PROPELLERPDFS pulse sequence can therefore be implemented into the standard MRI shoulder procedure.