4.7 Article

Reliability and Validity of a MR-Based Volumetric Analysis of the Intrinsic Foot Muscles

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 1083-1093

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24069

Keywords

diabetes mellitus; peripheral neuropathy; intermuscular adipose tissue; muscle

Funding

  1. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [R21 HD058938, T32 HD007434, K12 HD055931, R24HD050837]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [UL1 RR024992]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo describe a semi-automated program that will segment subcutaneous fat, muscle, and adipose tissue in the foot using MR imaging, determine the reliability of the program between and within raters, and determine the validity of the program using MR phantoms. Materials and MethodsMR images were acquired from 19 subjects with and without diabetes and peripheral neuropathy. Two raters segmented and measured volumes from single MR slices at the forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot at two different times. Intra- and inter-rater correlation coefficients were determined. Muscle and fat MR phantoms of known volumes were measured by the program. ResultsMost ICC reliability values were over 0.950. Validity estimates comparing MR estimates and known volumes resulted in r(2) values above 0.970 for all phantoms. The root mean square error was less than 5% for all phantoms. ConclusionSubcutaneous fat, lean muscle, and adipose tissue volumes in the foot can be quantified in a reliable and valid way. This program can be applied in future studies investigating the relationship of these foot structures to functions in important pathologies, including the neuropathic foot or other musculoskeletal problems. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;38:1083-1093. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available