4.5 Article

Quantitative cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibilitv contrast MRI: Evaluation of reproducibility and age- and gender-dependence with fully automatic image postprocessing algorithm

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 1232-1241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21420

关键词

dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; quantitative cerebral perfusion; reproducibility; age dependence; gender dependence; automatic image postprocessing algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel approach for quantifying cerebral blood flow (CBF) is proposed that combines the bookend technique of calculating cerebral perfusion with an automatic postprocessing algorithm. The reproducibility of the quantitative CBF (qCBF) measurement in healthy controls (N = 8) showed a higher intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and lower coefficient of variation (COV) when calculated with automatic analysis (ICC/COV = 0.90/0.09) than when compared to conventional manual analysis (ICC/COV = 0.58/0.19). Also, the reproducibility in patients (N = 25) was successfully evaluated with the automatic analysis (ICC/COV = 0.81/0.14). In 175 consecutive clinical scans, we found 3.0% and 7.4% of qCBF decrease per decade in white matter (WM) (21.5 +/- 6.66 ml/100 g-min) and gray matter (GM) (49.6 +/- 16.2 ml/100 g-min), respectively. Cerebral blood volume (CBV) showed a significant 3.7% decrease per decade in GM (3.00 +/- 0.94 ml/100 g) but not in WM (1.69 +/- 0.40 ml/100 g). Mean transit time (MTT) increased by 1.9% and 3.8% per decade in WM (5.04 +/- 0.88 s) and GM (4.14 +/- 0.80 s), respectively. qCBF and MTT values between males (N 85) and females (N = 90) were significantly different in GM. Women showed 11% higher qCBF as well as a higher decrease in qCBF with increasing age than men in the whole brain (WB). Our results supported the notion that population average empirical quantification of cerebral perfusion is subject to individual variation as well as age- and gender-dependent variability.

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