Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Feb 7.
Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2014 Aug 7;74(1):93–105. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25377

Figure 5.

Figure 5

T2 values from different T2 curve fitting methods versus the reference T2 values generated from the spin echo sequence for all vials of the phantom, as well as the identity line. In the upper row, T2 values are estimated using short acquisitions (i.e. 3 (0, 25, 50 ms) samples for the 2-parameter fit, 4 samples (0, 25, 50, 90 ms) for the 3-parameter fit without SAT, and 4 samples (0, 25, 50, ∞ ms) for the 3-parameter fit with SAT. In the lower row, T2 values are estimated using long acquisitions (i.e. all 27 T2prep echoes). The conventional 2-parameter fit significantly overestimates the T2 values for both 3 and 27 T2prep echoes (P = 0.013 and 0.005 respectively). The 3-parameter fit without SAT image results in no significant difference for either the short acquisition echoes (P = 0.073) or with 27 T2prep echoes (P = 0.126). The proposed 3-parameter fit with SAT image, using 3 or 27 T2prep echoes, produces T2 values that are not significantly different than the reference values (P = 0.104 and 0.3 respectively).