OBJECTIVE: To review studies on the assessment of correlations between magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) histogram analysis and measures of clinical and neuropsychological function. BACKGROUND: Since its recent introduction, MTR histogram analysis has attracted attention in the field of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: In this paper, studies are discussed that deal with MTR histogram analysis. The principles of MTR, application of MTR methodology as regional and volumetric MTR analysis, clinical and neuropsychological correlates, and potential use of MTR histogram analysis as an estimate of cerebral lesion load in MS are discussed respectively. RESULTS: In several preliminary studies, it has been shown that in MS patients, measures derived from MTR histograms correlate with measures of clinical and particularly neuropsychological function. CONCLUSION: MTR histogram analysis is a promising method to estimate cerebral lesion load in MS patients. Before it can be routinely used as an outcome measure in clinical trials, a number of questions about this technique have to be addressed.
OBJECTIVE: To review studies on the assessment of correlations between magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) histogram analysis and measures of clinical and neuropsychological function. BACKGROUND: Since its recent introduction, MTR histogram analysis has attracted attention in the field of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: In this paper, studies are discussed that deal with MTR histogram analysis. The principles of MTR, application of MTR methodology as regional and volumetric MTR analysis, clinical and neuropsychological correlates, and potential use of MTR histogram analysis as an estimate of cerebral lesion load in MS are discussed respectively. RESULTS: In several preliminary studies, it has been shown that in MSpatients, measures derived from MTR histograms correlate with measures of clinical and particularly neuropsychological function. CONCLUSION: MTR histogram analysis is a promising method to estimate cerebral lesion load in MSpatients. Before it can be routinely used as an outcome measure in clinical trials, a number of questions about this technique have to be addressed.
Authors: Antoin D de Weijer; Sebastiaan F W Neggers; Kelly M S Diederen; René C W Mandl; René S Kahn; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol; Iris E Sommer Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Hongyan Du; Ying Wu; Renee Ochs; Robert R Edelman; Leon G Epstein; Justin McArthur; Ann B Ragin Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2012-08-12 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Kathleen M Zackowski; Seth A Smith; Daniel S Reich; Eliza Gordon-Lipkin; BettyAnn A Chodkowski; Divya R Sambandan; Michael Shteyman; Amy J Bastian; Peter C van Zijl; Peter A Calabresi Journal: Brain Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: René C W Mandl; Hugo G Schnack; Judy Luigjes; Martijn P van den Heuvel; Wiepke Cahn; René S Kahn; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Y Wu; P Storey; A Carrillo; C Saglamer; B A Cohen; L G Epstein; R R Edelman; A B Ragin Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Caroline K Jurgens; Reineke Bos; Jasper Luyendijk; Marie-Noëlle W Witjes-Ané; Jeroen van der Grond; Huub A M Middelkoop; Raymund A C Roos Journal: J Neurol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 4.849