4.7 Article

Variability by region and method in human brain sodium concentrations estimated by Na-23 magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30363-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sodium imaging (Na-23-MRI) is a promising technique to study neurological conditions. This study analyzed existing literature to estimate the sodium concentration in healthy brain regions and explore the variability attributed to different regions and methodologies.
Sodium imaging (Na-23-MRI) is of interest in neurological conditions given potential sensitivity to the physiological and metabolic status of tissues. Benchmarks have so far been restricted to parenchyma or grey/white matter (GM/WM). We investigate (1) the availability of evidence, (2) regional pooled estimates and (3) variability attributable to region/methodology. MEDLINE literature search for tissue sodium concentration (TSC) measured in specified 'healthy' brain regions returned 127 reports, plus 278 retrieved from bibliographies. 28 studies met inclusion criteria, including 400 individuals. Reporting variability led to nested data structure, so we used multilevel meta-analysis and a random effects model to pool effect sizes. The pooled mean from 141 TSC estimates was 40.51 mM (95% CI 37.59-43.44; p < 0.001, I(Total=)(2)99.4%). Tissue as a moderator was significant (F-14(2) = 65.34, p-val < .01). Six sub-regional pooled means with requisite statistical power were derived. We were unable to consider most methodological and demographic factors sought because of non-reporting, but each factor included beyond tissue improved model fit. Significant residual heterogeneity remained. The current estimates provide an empirical point of departure for better understanding in Na-23-MRI. Improving on current estimates supports: (1) larger, more representative data collection/sharing, including (2) regional data, and (3) agreement on full reporting standards.

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