Artificial multiple sclerosis lesions on simulated FLAIR brain MR images: Echo time and observer performance in detection

Radiology

Volumn 239, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 238-245

  Pikus, Lana ^a   Woo, John H ^a   Wolf, Ronald L ^a   Herskovits, Edward H ^a,b   Moonis, Gul ^a   Jawad, Abbas F ^a,c   Krejza, Jaroslaw ^a,d   Melhem, Elias R ^a,b  

^a HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^c CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA   (United States)

^d MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GDANSK   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APPARATUS; ARTIFACT; CASE REPORT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE SIMULATION; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FLUID ATTENUATED INVERSION RECOVERY NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING SYSTEM; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEUROIMAGING; NEURORADIOLOGY; NON PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; TIME; VOLUNTEER;

ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33645126820     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2383050211     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Miller DH, Filippi M, Fazekas F, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging within diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2004;50:273-278.
2. Herskovits EH, Itoh R, Melhem ER. Accuracy for detection of simulated lesions: comparison of fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery, proton density-weighted, and T2-weighted synthetic brain MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1313-1318.
3. Bastianello S, Bozzao A, Paolillo A, et al. Fast spin-echo and fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery versus conventional spin-echo sequences for MR quantification of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:699-704.
4. Yousry TA, Filippi M, Becker C, Horsfield MA, Voltz K. Comparison of MR pulse sequences in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18: 050-963,
5. Moriarty DM, Blackshaw AJ, Talhot PR, et al. Memory dysfunction in multiple sclerosis corresponds to juxtacortical lesion load on fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20: 1956-1962.
6. Rovaris M, Comi G, Rocca MA, et al. Relevance of hypointense lesions on fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MR images as a marker of disease severity in cases of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:813-820.
7. Rydberg JN, Biederer SJ, Rydberg CH, Jack CR. Contrast optimization of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:868-877.
8. Melhem ER, Herskovits KH, Karli-Oguz K, et al. Defining thresholds for changes in size of simulated T2-hyperintense brain lesions on the basis of qualitative comparisons. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:65-69.
9. Chakraborty DP, Winter LHL. Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology 1990;174:873-881.
10. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 2004;31:2313-2330.
11. Okuda T, Korogi Y, Shigematsu Y, et al. Brain lesions: when should fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery sequences be used in MR evaluation? Radiology 1999;212:793-798.
12. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. ROC characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-731.