4.7 Article

MRI Measurements of Carotid Plaque in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study: Methods, Reliability and Descriptive Statistics

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 406-415

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22043

关键词

atherosclerosis; epidemiology; magnetic resonance imaging; plaque; statistics

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-55015, N01-HC-55016, N01-HC-55018, N01-HC-55019, N01-HC-55020, N01-HC-55021, N01-HC-55022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To measure carotid plaque components using MRI and estimate reliability in the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Materials and Methods: Contrast-enhanced high-resolution (0.51 x 0.58 x 2 mm(3)) MRI images were acquired through internal (ICA) and common carotid arteries (CCA) of 2066 ARIC participants at four sites. Sixty-one exams were repeated and 164 pairs had repeated interpretations. Plaque component thicknesses, areas and volumes over eight slices (1.6-cm segment) were measured. Intraplaque hemorrhage was recorded. Reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlations and kappa statistics. Results: There were 1769 successful MRI exams (mean age 71 years; 57% females: 81% white; 19% African-Americans). Repeat scan reliability was highest for CCA lumen area (0.94) and maximum wall thickness (0.89), ICA lumen area (0.89) and maximum wall thickness (0.77) and total wall volume (0.79), and lowest for small structures-core volume (0.30) and mean cap thickness (0.38). Overall reliability was primarily related to reader variability rather than scan acquisition. K's for presence of core, calcification and hemorrhage were fair to good. White men had the thickest plaques (average maximum ICA wall thickness = 2.3 mm) and the most cores (34%). Conclusion: The most important limiting factor for MRI measurements of plaque components is reader variability. Measurement error depends largely on the analyzed structure's size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据