Identical, but not the same: Intra-site and inter-site reproducibility of fractional anisotropy measures on two 3.0T scanners

NeuroImage

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1384-1394

  Vollmar, Christian ^a   O'Muircheartaigh, Jonathan ^b   Barker, Gareth J ^b   Symms, Mark R ^a   Thompson, Pamela ^a   Kumari, Veena ^b   Duncan, John S ^a   Richardson, Mark P ^b   Koepp, Matthias J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN MAPPING; BRAIN SIZE; CARDIAC GATED IMAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING; FEMALE; FRACTIONAL ANISOTROPY; GRAY MATTER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WHITE MATTER;

ADULT; ANISOTROPY; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEURAL PATHWAYS; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77952879583     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.046     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Alexander A.L., Lee J.E., et al. Comparison of diffusion tensor imaging measurements at 3.0T versus 1.5T with and without parallel imaging. Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 2006, 16(2):299-309. xi.
2. Ardekani S., Selva L., et al. Quantitative metrics for evaluating parallel acquisition techniques in diffusion tensor imaging at 3Tesla. Invest. Radiol. 2006, 41(11):806-814.
3. Basser P.J., Pierpaoli C. Microstructural and physiological features of tissues elucidated by quantitative-diffusion-tensor MRI. J. Magn. Reson. B 1996, 111(3):209-219.
4. Behrens T.E., Woolrich M.W., et al. Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 2003, 50(5):1077-1088.
5. Bisdas S., Bohning D.E., et al. Reproducibility, interrater agreement, and age-related changes of fractional anisotropy measures at 3T in healthy subjects: effect of the applied b-value. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2008, 29(6):1128-1133.
6. Bonekamp D., Nagae L.M., et al. Diffusion tensor imaging in children and adolescents: reproducibility, hemispheric, and age-related differences. Neuroimage 2007, 34(2):733-742.
7. Cercignani M., Bammer R., et al. Inter-sequence and inter-imaging unit variability of diffusion tensor MR imaging histogram-derived metrics of the brain in healthy volunteers. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2003, 24(4):638-643.
8. Chung S., Courcot B., et al. Bootstrap quantification of cardiac pulsation artifact in DTI. Neuroimage 2009.
9. Ciccarelli O., Parker G.J., et al. From diffusion tractography to quantitative white matter tract measures: a reproducibility study. Neuroimage 2003, 18(2):348-359.
10. Cook P.A., Bai Y., et al. Camino: open-source diffusion-MRI reconstruction and processing. 14th Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: 2759 2006.
11. Focke N.K., Yogarajah M., et al. Voxel-based diffusion tensor imaging in patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and hippocampal sclerosis. Neuroimage 2008, 40(2):728-737.
12. Ge Y., Law M., et al. Applications of diffusion tensor MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2005, 1064:202-219.
13. Gui M., Tamhane A.A., et al. Contribution of cardiac-induced brain pulsation to the noise of the diffusion tensor in Turboprop diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2008, 27(5):1164-1168.
14. Heiervang E., Behrens T.E., et al. Between session reproducibility and between subject variability of diffusion MR and tractography measures. Neuroimage 2006, 33(3):867-877.
15. Jansen J.F., Kooi M.E., et al. Reproducibility of quantitative cerebral T2 relaxometry, diffusion tensor imaging, and 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 3.0Tesla. Invest. Radiol. 2007, 42(6):327-337.
16. Jones D.K., Williams S.C., et al. Isotropic resolution diffusion tensor imaging with whole brain acquisition in a clinically acceptable time. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2002, 15(4):216-230.
17. Landman B.A., Farrell J.A., et al. Effects of diffusion weighting schemes on the reproducibility of DTI-derived fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and principal eigenvector measurements at 1.5T. Neuroimage 2007, 36(4):1123-1138.
18. Nagy Z., Weiskopf N., et al. A method for improving the performance of gradient systems for diffusion-weighted MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 2007, 58(4):763-768.
19. Ni H., Kavcic V., et al. Effects of number of diffusion gradient directions on derived diffusion tensor imaging indices in human brain. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2006, 27(8):1776-1781.
20. Papadakis N.G., Xing D., et al. A comparative study of acquisition schemes for diffusion tensor imaging using MRI. J. Magn. Reson. 1999, 137(1):67-82.
21. Pfefferbaum A., Adalsteinsson E., et al. Replicability of diffusion tensor imaging measurements of fractional anisotropy and trace in brain. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2003, 18(4):427-433.
22. Rorden C., Brett M. Stereotaxic display of brain lesions. Behav. Neurol. 2000, 12(4):191-200.
23. Skare S., Andersson J.L. On the effects of gating in diffusion imaging of the brain using single shot EPI. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001, 19(8):1125-1128.
24. Smith S.M. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2002, 17(3):143-155.
25. Sullivan E.V., Pfefferbaum A. Diffusion tensor imaging and aging. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2006, 30(6):749-761.
26. Wheeler-Kingshott C.A., Hickman S.J., et al. Investigating cervical spinal cord structure using axial diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimage 2002, 16(1):93-102.