Intercenter differences in diffusion tensor MRI acquisition

Purpose: To assess the effect on diffusion tensor (DT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of acquiring data with different scanners. Materials and Methods: Forty‐four healthy controls and 36 multiple sclerosis patients with low disability were studied using eight MR scanners with acquisition protocols...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2010-06, Vol.31 (6), p.1458-1468
Main Authors: Pagani, Elisabetta, Hirsch, Jochen G., Pouwels, Petra J.W., Horsfield, Mark A., Perego, Elisabetta, Gass, Achim, Roosendaal, Stefan D., Barkhof, Frederik, Agosta, Federica, Rovaris, Marco, Caputo, Domenico, Giorgio, Antonio, Palace, Jacqueline, Marino, Silvia, De Stefano, Nicola, Ropele, Stefan, Fazekas, Franz, Filippi, Massimo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Case-Control Studies
Corpus Callosum - pathology
data variability
Diffusion
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
DT-MRI
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Male
Middle Aged
multicenter acquisition
Multiple Sclerosis - diagnosis
Multiple Sclerosis - pathology
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Water - chemistry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: To assess the effect on diffusion tensor (DT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of acquiring data with different scanners. Materials and Methods: Forty‐four healthy controls and 36 multiple sclerosis patients with low disability were studied using eight MR scanners with acquisition protocols that were as close to a standard protocol as possible. Between 7 and 13 subjects were studied in each center. Region‐of‐interest (ROI) and histogram‐based analyses of fractional anisotropy (FA), axial (Dax), radial (Drad), and mean diffusivity (MD) were performed. The influence of variables such as the acquisition center and the control/patient group was determined with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Results: The patient/control group explained ≈25% of data variability of FA and Drad from midsagittal corpus callosum (CC) ROIs. Global FA, MD, and Drad in the white matter differentiated patients from controls, but with lower discriminatory power than for the CC. In the gray matter, MD discriminated patients from controls (30% of variability explained by group vs. 17% by center). Conclusion: Significant variability of DT‐MRI data can be attributed to the acquisition center, even when a standardized protocol is used. The use of appropriate segmentation methods and statistical models allows DT‐derived metrics to differentiate patients from healthy controls. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;31:1458–1468. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
ISSN:1053-1807
1522-2586
DOI:10.1002/jmri.22186