4.5 Article

A Validation Study of Multicenter Diffusion Tensor Imaging: Reliability of Fractional Anisotropy and Diffusivity Values

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 695-700

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2844

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [K23 NS 47211]
  2. NMSS [RG 4091 A3/1]
  3. Genentech
  4. Biogen Ides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DTI is increasingly being used as a measure to study tissue damage in several neurologic diseases. Our aim was to investigate the comparability of DTI measures between different MR imaging magnets and platforms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two healthy volunteers underwent DTI on five 31 MR imaging scanners (3 Trios and 2 Signas) by using a matched 33 noncollinear diffusion-direction pulse sequence. Within each subject, a total of 16 white matter (corpus callosum, periventricular, and deep white matter) and gray matter (cortical and deep gray) ROIs were drawn on a single image set and then were coregistered to the other images. Mean FA, ADC, and longitudinal and transverse diffusivities were calculated within each ROI. Concordance correlations were derived by comparing ROI DTI values among each of the 5 magnets. RESULTS: Mean concordance for FA was 0.96; for both longitudinal and transverse diffusivities, it was 0.93; and for ADC, it was 0.88. Mean scan-rescan concordance was 0.96-0.97 for all DTI measures. Concordance correlations within platforms were, in general, better than those between platforms for all DTI measures (mean concordance of 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a 3T magnet and high-angular-resolution pulse sequence yielded comparable DTI measurements across different MR imaging magnets and platforms. Our results indicate that FA is the most comparable measure across magnets, followed by individual diffusivities. The comparability of DTI measures between different magnets supports the feasibility of multicentered clinical trials by using DTI as an outcome measure.

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

4.5
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