% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Faust:299782,
      author       = {J. F. Faust and P. Speier and A. J. Krafft and S. Patil and
                      R. T. Seethamraju and M. Ladd$^*$ and F. Maier},
      title        = {{P}ositive susceptibility-based contrast imaging with
                      dephased balanced steady-state free precession.},
      journal      = {Magnetic resonance in medicine},
      volume       = {94},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1522-2594},
      address      = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Liss},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-00537},
      pages        = {59-72},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {Volume 94, Issue 1, July 2025 , Pages 59-72},
      abstract     = {Dephasing gradients can be introduced within a variety of
                      gradient-echo pulse sequences to delineate local
                      susceptibility changes ('White-Marker' phenomenon), e.g.,
                      for the visualization of metallic interventional devices
                      which are otherwise difficult to display. We investigated
                      dephased balanced steady-state free precession (d-bSSFP) and
                      compared it with similar contrast techniques: dephased
                      RF-spoiled fast low-angle shot (d-FLASH) and dephased
                      steady-state free precession (d-SSFP).A signal model was
                      formulated to describe the positive contrast in d-bSSFP. For
                      the example of an MR-compatible aspiration needle, the
                      positive contrast artifact appearance was theoretically
                      derived, and the model was verified in a water phantom at B0
                      = 0.55 T. Model accuracy was evaluated by comparing the
                      measured artifact size (for TEs between 3.4 ms and 50 ms)
                      and the signal magnitude to the model prediction.While
                      positive contrast artifacts for d-FLASH and d-SSFP are
                      axisymmetric with respect to the generating object, for
                      d-bSSFP, a point-symmetric susceptibility artifact arises
                      for a cylindrical needle due to the characteristic signal
                      formation. The observed d-bSSFP artifact size was in
                      accordance with the model (error < 1 mm). Measured
                      (predicted) cumulated artifact signal was 1.13 ± 0.07
                      (1.27) times higher and 5.9 ± 0.4 times higher than the
                      d-SSFP and d-FLASH cumulated artifact signal, respectively.
                      In contrast to d-SSFP, the d-bSSFP artifact was robust
                      against banding artifacts.d-bSSFP contrast is well described
                      by the introduced model. Positive contrast artifacts show
                      higher cumulated signal magnitude, symmetry, and homogeneity
                      compared with d-FLASH and d-SSFP and can therefore improve
                      device visualization and potentially device localization.},
      keywords     = {bSSFP (Other) / dephased MRI (Other) / interventional MRI
                      (Other) / positive contrast (Other) / white‐marker imaging
                      (Other)},
      cin          = {E020},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:40079240},
      doi          = {10.1002/mrm.30421},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/299782},
}