Comparison of Parallel Magnetic Resonance Imaging Algorithms: Pils and Sense
Loading...
Files
Date
2020
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
Open Access Color
Green Open Access
No
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging has always followed a developmental path by incorporating new algorithms in terms of image quality and imaging duration. In MR imaging performed in hospitals and clinics, the duration of imaging is an important consideration in terms of both for the comfort of the patient and the number of patients who can be taken daily. One of the approaches to shorten the imaging time is the parallel imaging method. After parallel imaging algorithms started being used, imaging duration up to 1 hour with traditional methods has been reduced to minutes or even seconds depending on the number of receiving coils and the type of algorithm used. In this paper; comparison of the widely used parallel imaging algorithms such as Partially Parallel Imaging With Localized Sensitivities (PILS), and Sensitivity Encoding (SENSE) and evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of these algorithms over each other were performed utilizing the numerical calculation software named MATLAB. © 2020 IEEE.
Description
2020 Medical Technologies Congress, TIPTEKNO 2020 -- 19 November 2020 through 20 November 2020 -- 166140
Keywords
Fourier Transform, K-Space, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Parallel Imaging, PILS, SENSE, Biomedical engineering, MATLAB, Localized sensitivities, MR imaging, Numerical calculation, Parallel imaging, Parallel imaging method, Receiving coil, Sensitivity encoding, Magnetic resonance imaging
Fields of Science
03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine
Citation
WoS Q
N/A
Scopus Q
N/A

OpenCitations Citation Count
N/A
Source
TIPTEKNO 2020 - Tip Teknolojileri Kongresi - 2020 Medical Technologies Congress, TIPTEKNO 2020
Volume
Issue
Start Page
1
End Page
4
PlumX Metrics
Citations
Scopus : 0
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 3
Google Scholar™


