Reproducibility and variability of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging markers in cerebral small vessel disease

Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism

Volumn 36, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 1319-1337

  De Guio, François ^a,b   Jouvent, Eric ^a,b,c   Biessels, Geert Jan ^d   Black, Sandra E ^e   Brayne, Carol ^f   Chen, Christopher ^g   Cordonnier, Charlotte ^h   De Leeuw, Frank Eric ⁱ   Dichgans, Martin ^j,k   Doubal, Fergus ^l   Duering, Marco ^j   Dufouil, Carole ^m   Duzel, Emrah ⁿ   Fazekas, Franz ^o   Hachinski, Vladimir ^p   Ikram, M Arfan ^q   Linn, Jennifer ^j   Matthews, Paul M ^r   Mazoyer, Bernard ^m   Mok, Vincent ^s   Norrving, Bo ^t   O'Brien, John T ^f   Pantoni, Leonardo ^u   Ropele, Stefan ^o   Sachdev, Perminder ^v   Schmidt, Reinhold ^o   Seshadri, Sudha ^w   Smith, Eric E ^x   Sposato, Luciano A ^p   Stephan, Blossom ^y   Swartz, Richard H ^e   Tzourio, Christophe ^m   Van Buchem, Mark ^z   Van Der Lugt, Aad ^q   Van Oostenbrugge, Robert ^aa   Vernooij, Meike W ^q   Viswanathan, Anand ^ab   Werring, David ^ac   Wollenweber, Frank ^j   Wardlaw, Joanna M ^l,ad   Chabriat, Hugues ^a,b,c   more..

^a UMR S1161   (France)

^b DHU Neurovasc   (France)

^c HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^g NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^h UNIV LILLE   (France)

ⁱ RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^j LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^k Technische Universität München Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology   (Germany)

^l UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^m UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

ⁿ OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^o MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^p UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^q ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^r IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^s CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^t LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^u UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^v UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^w BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^x UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^y NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^z LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^aa MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^ab MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^ac UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^ad UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

atrophy; brain volume; cerebral small vessel disease; lacunes; Magnetic resonance imaging; marker; microbleeds; perivascular spaces; repeatability; reproducibility; variability; white matter hyperintensities

Indexed keywords

BRAIN ATROPHY; BRAIN CORTEX; BRAIN SIZE; CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAGNETIC FIELD; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BRAIN; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE PROCESSING; MICROVASCULATURE; PROCEDURES; VASCULARIZATION;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BIOMARKERS; BRAIN; CEREBRAL SMALL VESSEL DISEASES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MICROVESSELS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84982918689     PISSN: 0271678X     EISSN: 15597016     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X16647396     Document Type: Review

References (122)

1. Román GC, Erkinjuntti T, Wallin A, et al. Subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia. Lancet Neurol 2002; 1: 426-436.
2. Chabriat H, Joutel A, Dichgans M, et al. Cadasil. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 643-653.
3. Selnes OA and Vinters HV. Vascular cognitive impairment. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2006; 2: 538-547.
4. Pantoni L. Cerebral small vessel disease: from pathogenesis and clinical characteristics to therapeutic challenges. Lancet Neurol 2010; 9: 689-701.
5. Wardlaw JM, Smith EE, Biessels GJ, et al. Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12: 822-838.
6. Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ, et al. The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Meth Med Res 2015; 24: 9-26.
7. Schnack HG, van Haren NEM, Pol HEH, et al. Reliability of brain volumes from multicenter MRI acquisition: a calibration study. Hum Brain Mapp 2004; 22: 312-320.
8. Ewers M, Teipel SJ, Dietrich O, et al. Multicenter assessment of reliability of cranial MRI. Neurobiol Aging 2006; 27: 1051-1059.
9. Smith SM, Rao A, De Stefano N, et al. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of atrophy in Alzheimer's disease: cross-validation of BSI, SIENA and SIENAX. Neuroimage 2007; 36: 1200-1206.
10. Jovicich J, Czanner S, Han X, et al. MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. Neuroimage 2009; 46: 177-192.
11. Reig S, Sanchez-Gonzalez J, Arango C, et al. Assessment of the increase in variability when combining volumetric data from different scanners. HumBrain Mapp 2009; 30: 355-368.
12. Wonderlick JS, Ziegler DA, Hosseini-Varnamkhasti P, et al. Reliability of MRI-derived cortical and subcortical morphometric measures: effects of pulse sequence, voxel geometry, and parallel imaging. Neuroimage 2009; 44: 1324-1333.
13. de Boer R, Vrooman HA, Ikram MA, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility study of automatic MRI brain tissue segmentation methods. Neuroimage 2010; 51: 1047-1056.
14. Kruggel F, Turner J, Muftuler LT, et al. Impact of scanner hardware and imaging protocol on image quality and compartment volume precision in the ADNI cohort. Neuroimage 2010; 49: 2123-2133.
15. Huppertz H-J, Kröll-Seger J, Klöppel S, et al. Intra-and interscanner variability of automated voxel-based volumetry based on a 3D probabilistic atlas of human cerebral structures. Neuroimage 2010; 49: 2216-2224.
16. Sampat MP, Healy BC, Meier DS, et al. Disease modeling in multiple sclerosis: assessment and quantification of sources of variability in brain parenchymal fraction measurements. Neuroimage 2010; 52: 1367-1373.
17. Cover KS, van Schijndel RA, van Dijk BW, et al. Assessing the reproducibility of the SienaX and Siena brain atrophy measures using the ADNI back-to-back MP-RAGE MRI scans. Psychiatry Res 2011; 193: 182-190.
18. Shokouhi M, Barnes A, Suckling J, et al. Assessment of the impact of the scanner-related factors on brain morphometry analysis with Brainvisa. BMC Med Imaging 2011; 11: 23.
19. de Bresser J, Portegies MP, Leemans A, et al. A comparison of MR based segmentation methods for measuring brain atrophy progression. Neuroimage 2011; 54: 760-768.
20. Landman BA, Huang AJ, Gifford A, et al. Multi-parametric neuroimaging reproducibility: a 3-T resource study. Neuroimage 2011; 54: 2854-2866.
21. Chalavi S, Simmons A, Dijkstra H, et al. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of structural magnetic resonance imaging data in a two-center study. BMC Med Imaging 2012; 12: 27.
22. Durand-Dubief F, Belaroussi B, Armspach JP, et al. Reliability of longitudinal brain volume loss measurements between 2 sites in patients with multiple sclerosis: comparison of 7 quantification techniques. AJNR. Am J Neuroradiol 2012; 33: 1918-1924.
23. Wei X, Warfield SK, Zou KH, et al. Quantitative analysis of MRI signal abnormalities of brain white matter with high reproducibility and accuracy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 15: 203-209.
24. Sicotte NL, Voskuhl RR, Bouvier S, et al. Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1. 5 and 3. 0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 423-427.
25. Theysohn JM, Kraff O, Maderwald S, et al. 7 Tesla MRI of microbleeds and white matter lesions as seen in vascular dementia. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 782-791.
26. Ramirez J, Scott CJ and Black SE. A short-term scan-rescan reliability test measuring brain tissue and subcortical hyperintensity volumetrics obtained using the lesion explorer structural MRI processing pipeline. Brain Topogr 2013; 26: 35-38.
27. Stehling C, Wersching H, Kloska SP, et al. Detection of asymptomatic cerebral microbleeds: a comparative study at 1. 5 and 3. 0 T. Acad Radiol 2008; 15: 895-900.
28. Nandigam RNK, Viswanathan A, Delgado P, et al. MR imaging detection of cerebral microbleeds: effect of susceptibility-weighted imaging, section thickness, and field strength. Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 338-343.
29. Conijn MMA, Geerlings MI, Biessels GJ, et al. Cerebral microbleeds on MR imaging: comparison between 1. 5 and 7T. Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 1043-1049.
30. Potter GM, Marlborough FJ and Wardlaw JM. Wide variation in definition, detection, and description of lacunar lesions on imaging. Stroke 2011; 42: 359-366.
31. Prins ND and Scheltens P. White matter hyperintensities, cognitive impairment and dementia: an update. Nat Rev Neurol 2015; 11: 157-165.
32. Fazekas F, Chawluk JB, Alavi A, et al. MR signal abnormalities at 1. 5 T in Alzheimer's dementia and normal aging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 149: 351-356.
33. Schmidt R, Fazekas F, Kleinert G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging signal hyperintensities in the deep and subcortical white matter. A comparative study between stroke patients and normal volunteers. Arch Neurol 1992; 49: 825-827.
34. Scheltens P, Barkhof F, Leys D, et al. A semiquantitative rating-scale for the assessment of signal hyperintensities on magnetic-resonance-imaging. J Neuroll Sci 1993; 114: 7-12.
35. Maillard P, Delcroix N, Crivello F, et al. An automated procedure for the assessment of white matter hyperintensities by multispectral (T1, T2, PD) MRI and an evaluation of its between-centre reproducibility based on two large community databases. Neuroradiology 2008; 50: 31-42.
36. Samaille T, Fillon L, Cuingnet R, et al. Contrast-based fully automatic segmentation of white matter hyperintensities: method and validation. Plos One 2012; 7: e48953.
37. Ramirez J, Gibson E, Quddus A, et al. Lesion explorer: a comprehensive segmentation and parcellation package to obtain regional volumetrics for subcortical hyperintensities and intracranial tissue. Neuroimage 2011; 54: 963-973.
38. Yoshita M, Fletcher E and DeCarli C. Current concepts of analysis of cerebral white matter hyperintensities on magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 16: 399-407.
39. Dyrby TB, Rostrup E, Baare WF, et al. Segmentation of age-related white matter changes in a clinical multi-center study. Neuroimage 2008; 41: 335-345.
40. van den Heuvel DM, ten Dam VH, de Craen AJ, et al. Measuring longitudinal white matter changes: comparison of a visual rating scale with a volumetric measurement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 875-878.
41. Wardlaw JM, Brindle W, Casado AM, et al. A systematic review of the utility of 1. 5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2295-2303.
42. Polak P, Magnano C, Zivadinov R, et al. 3D FLAIRED: 3D fluid attenuated inversion recovery for enhanced detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis. Magn Reson Med 2012; 68: 874-881.
43. Ramirez J, Berezuk C, McNeely AA, et al. Visible Virchow-Robin spaces on magnetic resonance imaging of Alzheimer's disease patients and normal elderly from the Sunnybrook dementia study. J Alzheimers Dis 2015; 43: 415-424.
44. Pettersen JA, Sathiyamoorthy G, Gao FQ, et al. Microbleed topography, leukoaraiosis, and cognition in probable Alzheimer disease from the Sunnybrook dementia study. Arch Neurol 2008; 65: 790-795.
45. Garcia-Lorenzo D, Francis S, Narayanan S, et al. Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclerosis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Med Image Anal 2013; 17: 1-18.
46. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Campi A, et al. Resolutiondependent estimates of lesion volumes in magneticresonance-imaging studies of the brain in multiple-sclerosiS. Ann Neurol 1995; 38: 749-754.
47. Valdes Hernandez MC, Ghandour D, Gonzales-Castro V, et al. On the computational assessment of white matter hyperintensity progression: difficulties in method selection and bias field correction performance on images with significant white matter pathology. Neuroradiology 2016; 58: 475-485.
48. Wang Y, Catindig JA, Hilal S, et al. Multi-stage segmentation of white matter hyperintensity, cortical and lacunar infarcts. Neuroimage 2012; 60: 2379-2388.
49. HervéD, Godin O, Dufouil C, et al. Three-dimensional MRI analysis of individual volume of Lacunes in CADASIL. Stroke 2009; 40: 124-128.
50. Viswanathan A, Guichard JP, Gschwendtner A, et al. Blood pressure and haemoglobin A1c are associated with microhaemorrhage in CADASIL: a two-centre cohort study. Brain 2006; 129(Pt 9): 2375-2383.
51. Benjamin P, Lawrence AJ, Lambert C, et al. Strategic lacunes and their relationship to cognitive impairment in cerebral small vessel disease. Neuroimage Clin 2014; 4: 828-837.
52. Hernandez Mdel C, Piper RJ, Wang X, et al. Towards the automatic computational assessment of enlarged perivascular spaces on brain magnetic resonance images: a systematic review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38: 774-785.
53. Adams HHH, Cavalieri M, Verhaaren BFJ, et al. Rating method for dilated virchow-robin spaces on magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke 2013; 44: 1732-1735.
54. Potter GM, Chappell FM, Morris Z, et al. Cerebral perivascular spaces visible on magnetic resonance imaging: development of a qualitative rating scale and its observer reliability. Cerebrovasc Dis 2015; 39: 224-231.
55. Wang X, Hernandez MD, Doubal F, et al. Development and initial evaluation of a semi-automatic approach to assess perivascular spaces on conventional magnetic resonance images. J Neurosci Meth 2015; 257: 34-44.
56. Zong X, Park SH, Shen D, et al. Visualization of perivascular spaces in the human brain at 7T: sequence optimization and morphology characterization. Neuroimage 2016; 125: 895-902.
57. Berezuk C, Ramirez J, Gao F, et al. Virchow-robin spaces: correlations with polysomnography-derived sleep parameters. Sleep 2015; 38: 853-858.
58. Greenberg SM, Vernooij MW, Cordonnier C, et al. Cerebral microbleeds: a guide to detection and interpretation. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 165-174.
59. de Laat KF, van den Berg HA, van Norden AG, et al. Microbleeds are independently related to gait disturbances in elderly individuals with cerebral small vessel disease. Stroke 2011; 42: 494-497.
60. van Norden AG, van Uden IW, de Laat KF, et al. Cerebral microbleeds are related to subjective cognitive failures: the RUN DMC study. Neurobiol Aging 2013; 34: 2225-2230.
61. Poels MM, Ikram MA, van der Lugt A, et al. Cerebral microbleeds are associated with worse cognitive function: the rotterdam scan study. Neurology 2012; 78: 326-333.
62. Gregoire SM, Scheffler G, Jager HR, et al. Strictly lobar microbleeds are associated with executive impairment in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Stroke 2013; 44: 1267-1272.
63. Cordonnier C, Potter GM, Jackson CA, et al. Improving interrater agreement about brain microbleeds development of the brain observer microbleed scale (BOMBS). Stroke 2009; 40: 94-99.
64. Gregoire SM, Chaudhary UJ, Brown MM, et al. The microbleed anatomical rating scale (MARS): reliability of a tool to map brain microbleeds. Neurology 2009; 73: 1759-1766.
65. Barnes SRS, Haacke EM, Ayaz M, et al. Semiautomated detection of cerebral microbleeds in magnetic resonance images. Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 29: 844-852.
66. Seghier ML, Kolanko MA, Leff AP, et al. Microbleed detection using automated segmentation (MIDAS): a new method applicable to standard clinical MR images. Plos One 2011; 6: e17547.
67. Kuijf HJ, de Bresser J, Geerlings MI, et al. Efficient detection of cerebral microbleeds on 7. 0 T MR images using the radial symmetry transform. Neuroimage 2012; 59: 2266-2273.
68. Kuijf HJ, Brundel M, de Bresser J, et al. Semi-automated detection of cerebral microbleeds on 3. 0 T MR images. PLoS One 2013; 8: e66610.
69. Fazlollahi A, Meriaudeau F, Giancardo L, et al. Computer-aided detection of cerebral microbleeds in susceptibility-weighted imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015; 46: 269-276.
70. Schrag M, McAuley G, Pomakian J, et al. Correlation of hypointensities in susceptibility-weighted images to tissue histology in dementia patients with cerebral amyloid angiopathy: a postmortem MRI study. Acta Neuropathologica 2010; 119: 291-302.
71. De Guio F, Benoit-Cattin H and Davenel A. Signal decay due to susceptibility-induced intravoxel dephasing on multiple air-filled cylinders: MRI simulations and experiments. MAGMA 2008; 21: 261-271.
72. VernooijMW, Ikram MA, Wielopolski PA, et al. Cerebral microbleeds: accelerated 3D T2-weighted GRE MR imaging versus conventional 2D T2-weighted GRE MR imaging for detection. Radiology 2008; 248: 272-277.
73. Haacke EM, Xu YB, Cheng YCN, et al. Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI). Magn Reson Med 2004; 52: 612-618.
74. Guo LF, Wang G, Zhu XY, et al. Comparison of ESWAN, SWI-SPGR, and 2D T2-weighted GRE sequence for depicting cerebral microbleeds. Clin Neuroradiol 2013; 23: 121-127.
75. Cheng AL, Batool S, McCreary CR, et al. Susceptibilityweighted imaging is more reliable than T2-weighted gradient-recalled echo MRI for detecting microbleeds. Stroke 2013; 44: 2782-2786.
76. Goos JDC, van der Flier WM, Knol DL, et al. Clinical relevance of improved microbleed detection by susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke 2011; 42: 1894-1900.
77. Charidimou A, Jager HR and Werring DJ. Cerebral microbleed detection and mapping: principles, methodological aspects and rationale in vascular dementia. Exp Gerontol 2012; 47: 843-852.
78. Gregoire SM, Werring DJ, Chaudhary UJ, et al. Choice of echo time on GRE T2-weighted MRI influences the classification of brain microbleeds. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 391-394.
79. Liu T, Surapaneni K, Lou M, et al. Cerebral microbleeds: burden assessment by using quantitative susceptibility mapping. Radiology 2012; 262: 269-278.
80. Peters N, Holtmannspötter M, Opherk C, et al. Brain volume changes in CADASIL: a serial MRI study in pure subcortical ischemic vascular disease. Neurology 2006; 66: 1517-1522.
81. Jouvent E, Viswanathan A, Mangin J-F, et al. Brain atrophy is related to lacunar lesions and tissue microstructural changes in CADASIL. Stroke 2007; 38: 1786-1790.
82. Viswanathan A, Godin O, Jouvent E, et al. Impact of MRI markers in subcortical vascular dementia: a multimodal analysis in CADASIL. Neurobiol Aging 2010; 31: 1629-1636.
83. Lawrence AJ, Patel B, Morris RG, et al. Mechanisms of cognitive impairment in cerebral small vessel disease: multimodal MRI results from the St George's cognition and neuroimaging in stroke (SCANS) study. PloS one 2013; 8: e61014.
84. Jokinen H, Lipsanen J, Schmidt R, et al. Brain atrophy accelerates cognitive decline in cerebral small vessel disease: the LADIS study. Neurology 2012; 78: 1785-1792.
85. Jouvent E, Viswanathan A and Chabriat H. Cerebral atrophy in cerebrovascular disorders. J Neuroimaging 2010; 20: 213-218.
86. O'sullivan M, Jouvent E, Saemann PG, et al. Measurement of brain atrophy in subcortical vascular disease: a comparison of different approaches and the impact of ischaemic lesions. Neuroimage 2008; 43: 312-320.
87. Kloppenborg RP, Nederkoorn PJ, Grool AM, et al. Cerebral small-vessel disease and progression of brain atrophy: the SMART-MR study. Neurology 2012; 79: 2029-2036.
88. Dale AM, Fischl B and Sereno MI. Cortical surfacebased analysis-I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 1999; 9: 179-194.
89. Fischl B, Sereno MI and Dale AM. Cortical surfacebased analysis-II: Inflation, flattening, and a surfacebased coordinate system. Neuroimage 1999; 9: 195-207.
90. Ashburner J and Friston KJ. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005; 26: 839-851.
91. Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Woolrich MW, et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 2004; 23: S208-S219.
92. Mangin J-F, Rivière D, Cachia A, et al. A framework to study the cortical folding patterns. Neuroimage 2004; 23: S129-S138.
93. Huang L, Wang X, Baliki MN, et al. Reproducibility of structural, resting-state BOLD and DTI data between identical scanners. PLoS One 2012; 7: e47684.
94. Gedamu EL, Collins DL and Arnold DL. Automated quality control of brain MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 308-319.
95. Patwardhan AJ, Eliez S, Warsofsky IS, et al. Effects of image orientation on the comparability of pediatric brain volumes using three-dimensional MR data. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25: 452-457.
96. Duning T, Kloska S, Steinstrater O, et al. Dehydration confounds the assessment of brain atrophy. Neurology 2005; 64: 548-550.
97. Nakamura K, Brown RA, Narayanan S, et al. Diurnal fluctuations in brain volume: statistical analyses of MRI from large populations. Neuroimage 2015; 118: 126-132.
98. Heye AK, Thrippleton MJ, Chappell FM, et al. Blood pressure and sodium: association with MRI markers in cerebral small vessel disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metabol 2016; 36: 264-274.
99. Wardlaw JM, Valdes HMC and Munoz-Maniega S. What are white matter hyperintensities made of ? Relevance to vascular cognitive impairment. J Am Heart Assoc 2015; 4: 001140.
100. Krueger G, Granziera C, Jack CR, et al. Effects of MRI scan acceleration on brain volume measurement consistency. J Magn ResonImaging 2012; 36: 1234-1240.
101. Ross DE, Ochs AL, DeSmit ME, et al. Man versus machine part 2: comparison of radiologists' interpretations and neuroquant measures of brain asymmetry and progressive atrophy in patients with traumatic brain injury. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2015; 27: 147-152.
102. Ritchie SJ, Dickie DA, Cox SR, et al. Brain volumetric changes and cognitive ageing during the eighth decade of life. Hum Brain Mapp 2015; 36: 4910-4925.
103. Peters N, Holtmannspotter M, Opherk C, et al. Brain volume changes in CADASIL: a serial MRI study in pure subcortical ischemic vascular disease. Neurology 2006; 66: 1517-1522.
104. Smith SM, de Stefano N, Jenkinson M, et al. Normalized accurate measurement of longitudinal brain change. J Compute Assist Tomogr 2001; 25: 466-475.
105. Smith SM, Zhang YY, Jenkinson M, et al. Accurate, robust, and automated longitudinal and cross-sectional brain change analysis. Neuroimage 2002; 17: 479-489.
106. Freeborough PA and Fox NC. The boundary shift integral: An accurate and robust measure of cerebral volume changes from registered repeat MRI. IEEE Transac Med Imaging 1997; 16: 623-629.
107. Takao H, Hayashi N and Ohtomo K. Effect of scanner in longitudinal studies of brain volume changes. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 34: 438-444.
108. Dickie DA, Job DE, Gonzalez DR, et al. Use of brain MRI atlases to determine boundaries of age-related pathology: the importance of statistical method. PloS One 2015; 10: e0127939.
109. O'Brien JT, Paling S, Barber R, et al. Progressive brain atrophy on serial MRI in dementia with Lewy bodies, AD, and vascular dementia. Neurology 2001; 56: 1386-1388.
110. Cover KS, van Schijndel RA, Popescu V, et al. The SIENA/FSL whole brain atrophy algorithm is no more reproducible at 3T than 1. 5 T for Alzheimer's disease. Psychiatry Res 2014; 224: 14-21.
111. Preboske GM, Gunter JL, Ward CP, et al. Common MRI acquisition non-idealities significantly impact the output of the boundary shift integral method of measuring brain atrophy on serial MRI. Neuroimage 2006; 30: 1196-1202.
112. Caramanos Z, Fonov VS, Francis SJ, et al. Gradient distortions in MRI: characterizing and correcting for their effects on SIENA-generated measures of brain volume change. Neuroimage 2010; 49: 1601-1611.
113. Jovicich J, Czanner S, Greve D, et al. Reliability in multi-site structural MRI studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom and human data. Neuroimage 2006; 30: 436-443.
114. Tadic T, Jaffray DA and Stanescu T. Harmonic analysis for the characterization and correction of geometric distortion in MRI. Med Phys 2014; 41: 112303.
115. Maikusa N, Yamashita F, Tanaka K, et al. Improved volumetric measurement of brain structure with a distortion correction procedure using an ADNI phantom. Med Phys 2013; 40: 062303.
116. Davids M, Zollner FG, Ruttorf M, et al. Fullyautomated quality assurance in multi-center studies using MRI phantom measurements. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32: 771-780.
117. Takao H, Abe O, Hayashi N, et al. Effects of gradient non-linearity correction and intensity non-uniformity correction in longitudinal studies using structural image evaluation using normalization of atrophy (SIENA). J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32: 489-492.
118. Pfefferbaum A, Rohlfing T, Rosenbloom MJ, et al. Combining atlas-based parcellation of regional brain data acquired across scanners at 1. 5 T and 3. 0 T field strengths. Neuroimage 2012; 60: 940-951.
119. Chua AS, Egorova S, Anderson MC, et al. Handling changes in MRI acquisition parameters in modeling whole brain lesion volume and atrophy data in multiple sclerosis subjects: comparison of linear mixed-effect models. Neuroimage. Clin 2015; 8: 606-610.
120. Pardoe HR, Cutter GR, Alter R, et al. Pooling morphometric estimates: a statistical equivalence approach. J Neuroimaging 2016; 26: 109-115.
121. Moorhead TW, Gountouna VE, Job DE, et al. Prospective multi-centre voxel based morphometry study employing scanner specific segmentations: procedure development using CaliBrain structural MRI data. BMC Med Imaging 2009; 9: 8.
122. Mortamet B, Bernstein MA, Jack CR Jr., et al. Automatic quality assessment in structural brain magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62: 365-372.