4.5 Article

Multivendor implementation and comparison of volumetric whole-brain echo-planar MR spectroscopic imaging

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 1209-1220

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25510

关键词

MR spectroscopic imaging; quantitative mapping; multicenter studies; MR standardization; clinical equivalency

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01EB000822]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo assess volumetric proton MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the human brain on multivendor MRI instruments. MethodsEcho-planar spectroscopic imaging was developed on instruments from three manufacturers, with matched specifications and acquisition protocols that accounted for differences in sampling performance, radiofrequency (RF) power, and data formats. Intersite reproducibility was evaluated for signal-normalized maps of N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine (Cre), and choline using phantom and human subject measurements. Comparative analyses included metrics for spectral quality, spatial coverage, and mean values in atlas-registered brain regions. ResultsIntersite differences for phantom measurements were less than 1.7% for individual metabolites and less than 0.2% for ratio measurements. Spatial uniformity ranged from 79% to 91%. The human studies found differences of mean values in the temporal lobe, but good agreement in other white matter regions, with maximum differences relative to their mean of under 3.2%. For NAA/Cre, the maximum difference was 1.8%. In gray matter, a significant difference was observed for frontal lobe NAA. Primary causes of intersite differences were attributed to shim quality, B-0 drift, and accuracy of RF excitation. Correlation coefficients for measurements at each site were over 0.60, indicating good reliability. ConclusionA volumetric intensity-normalized MRSI acquisition can be implemented in a comparable manner across multivendor MR instruments. Magn Reson Med 74:1209-1220, 2015. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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