BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To provide further insight into the MRI assessment of age-related white matter changes (ARWMCs) with visual rating scales, 3 raters with different levels of experience tested the interrater agreement and comparability of 3 widely used rating scales in a cross-sectional and follow-up setting. Furthermore, the correlation between visual ratings and quantitative volumetric measurement was assessed. METHODS: Three raters from different sites using 3 established rating scales (Manolio, Fazekas and Schmidt, Scheltens) evaluated 74 baseline and follow-up scans from 5 European centers. One investigator also rated baseline scans in a set of 255 participants of the Austrian Stroke Prevention Study (ASPS) and measured the volume of ARWMCs. RESULTS: The interrater agreement for the baseline investigation was fair to good for all scales (kappa values, 0.59 to 0.78). On the follow-up scans, all 3 raters depicted significant ARWMC progression; however, the direct interrater agreement for this task was poor (kappa, 0.19 to 0.39). Comparison of the interrater reliability between the 3 scales revealed a statistical significant difference between the scale of Manolio and that of Fazekas and Schmidt for the baseline investigation (z value, -2.9676; P=0.003), demonstrating better interrater agreement for the Fazekas and Schmidt scale. The rating results obtained with all 3 scales were highly correlated with each other (Spearman rank correlation, 0.712 to 0.806; P< or =0.01), and there was significant agreement between all 3 visual rating scales and the quantitative volumetric measurement of ARWMC (Kendall W, 0.37, 0.48, and 0.57; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that the 3 rating scales studied reflect the actual volume of ARWMCs well. The 2 scales that provide more detailed information on ARWMCs seemed preferential compared with the 1 that yields more global information. The visual assessment of ARWMC progression remains problematic and may require modifications or extensions of existing rating scales.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To provide further insight into the MRI assessment of age-related white matter changes (ARWMCs) with visual rating scales, 3 raters with different levels of experience tested the interrater agreement and comparability of 3 widely used rating scales in a cross-sectional and follow-up setting. Furthermore, the correlation between visual ratings and quantitative volumetric measurement was assessed. METHODS: Three raters from different sites using 3 established rating scales (Manolio, Fazekas and Schmidt, Scheltens) evaluated 74 baseline and follow-up scans from 5 European centers. One investigator also rated baseline scans in a set of 255 participants of the Austrian Stroke Prevention Study (ASPS) and measured the volume of ARWMCs. RESULTS: The interrater agreement for the baseline investigation was fair to good for all scales (kappa values, 0.59 to 0.78). On the follow-up scans, all 3 raters depicted significant ARWMC progression; however, the direct interrater agreement for this task was poor (kappa, 0.19 to 0.39). Comparison of the interrater reliability between the 3 scales revealed a statistical significant difference between the scale of Manolio and that of Fazekas and Schmidt for the baseline investigation (z value, -2.9676; P=0.003), demonstrating better interrater agreement for the Fazekas and Schmidt scale. The rating results obtained with all 3 scales were highly correlated with each other (Spearman rank correlation, 0.712 to 0.806; P< or =0.01), and there was significant agreement between all 3 visual rating scales and the quantitative volumetric measurement of ARWMC (Kendall W, 0.37, 0.48, and 0.57; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that the 3 rating scales studied reflect the actual volume of ARWMCs well. The 2 scales that provide more detailed information on ARWMCs seemed preferential compared with the 1 that yields more global information. The visual assessment of ARWMC progression remains problematic and may require modifications or extensions of existing rating scales.
Authors: D M J van den Heuvel; V H ten Dam; A J M de Craen; F Admiraal-Behloul; A C G M van Es; W M Palm; A Spilt; E L E M Bollen; G J Blauw; L Launer; R G J Westendorp; M A van Buchem Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D M J van den Heuvel; V H ten Dam; A J M de Craen; F Admiraal-Behloul; H Olofsen; E L E M Bollen; J Jolles; H M Murray; G J Blauw; R G J Westendorp; M A van Buchem Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Natalia S Rost; Saloomeh Sadaghiani; Alessandro Biffi; Kaitlin M Fitzpatrick; Lisa Cloonan; Jonathan Rosand; Dean K Shibata; Thomas H Mosley Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: R Nick Bryan; Michel Bilello; Christos Davatzikos; Ronald M Lazar; Anne Murray; Karen Horowitz; James Lovato; Michael E Miller; Jeff Williamson; Lenore J Launer Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105