4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Effects of signal-to-noise ratio on the accuracy and reproducibility, of diffusion tensor imaging-derived fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and principal eigenvector measurements at 1.5T

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 756-767

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21053

关键词

DTI; reproducibility; precision; fractional anisotropy; mean diffusivity; principal cigenvector

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41RR15241, P41 RR015241, P41 RR015241-04, U24 RR021382, U24 RR021382-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG20012, R01 AG020012, R01 AG020012-01] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [P41 EB015909] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To develop an experimental protocol to calculate the precision and accuracy of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and the orientation of the principal eigenvector (PEV) as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in vivo. Materials and Methods: A healthy male volunteer was scanned in three separate scanning sessions, yielding a total of 45 diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) scans. To provide FA, MD, and PEV as a function of SNR, sequential scans from a scan session were grouped into nonintersecting sets. Analysis of the accuracy and precision of the DTI-derived contrasts was done in both a voxel-wise and region of interest (ROI)-based manner. Results: An upward bias of FA and no significant bias in MD were present as SNR decreased, confirming results from simulation-based studies. Notably, while the precision of the PEV became worse at low SNR, no bias in the PEV orientation was observed. Overall, an accurate and precise quantification of FA values in GM requires substantially more SNR than the quantification of white matter (WM) FA values Conclusion: This study provides guidance for FA, MD, and PEV quantification and a means to investigate the minimal detectable differences within and across scan sessions as a function of SNR.

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