BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the application of functional MR imaging for presurgical planning, high reproducibility is required. We investigated whether the reproducibility of functional MR imaging results in healthy volunteers depended on the MR system used. METHODS: Visual functional MR imaging reproducibility experiments were performed with 12 subjects, by using two comparable 1.5-T MR systems from different manufacturers. Each session consisted of two runs, and each subject underwent three sessions, two on one system and one on the other. Reproducibility measures D (distance in millimeters) and R(size) and R(overlap) (ratios) were calculated under three conditions: same session, which compared runs from one session; intersession, which compared runs from different sessions but from the same system; and intermachine, which compared runs from the two different systems. The data were averaged per condition and per system, and were compared. RESULTS: The average same-session values of the reproducibility measures did not differ significantly between the two systems. The average intersession values did not differ significantly as to the volume of activation (R(size)), but did differ significantly as to the location of this volume (D and R(overlap)). The average intermachine reproducibility did not differ significantly from the average intersession reproducibility of the MR system with the worst reproducibility. CONCLUSION: The location of activated voxels from visual functional MR imaging experiments varied more between sessions on one MR system than on other MR system. The amount of the activated voxels is independent of the MR system used. We suggest that sites performing functional MR imaging for presurgical planning measure the intersession reproducibility to determine an accurate surgical safety margin.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the application of functional MR imaging for presurgical planning, high reproducibility is required. We investigated whether the reproducibility of functional MR imaging results in healthy volunteers depended on the MR system used. METHODS: Visual functional MR imaging reproducibility experiments were performed with 12 subjects, by using two comparable 1.5-T MR systems from different manufacturers. Each session consisted of two runs, and each subject underwent three sessions, two on one system and one on the other. Reproducibility measures D (distance in millimeters) and R(size) and R(overlap) (ratios) were calculated under three conditions: same session, which compared runs from one session; intersession, which compared runs from different sessions but from the same system; and intermachine, which compared runs from the two different systems. The data were averaged per condition and per system, and were compared. RESULTS: The average same-session values of the reproducibility measures did not differ significantly between the two systems. The average intersession values did not differ significantly as to the volume of activation (R(size)), but did differ significantly as to the location of this volume (D and R(overlap)). The average intermachine reproducibility did not differ significantly from the average intersession reproducibility of the MR system with the worst reproducibility. CONCLUSION: The location of activated voxels from visual functional MR imaging experiments varied more between sessions on one MR system than on other MR system. The amount of the activated voxels is independent of the MR system used. We suggest that sites performing functional MR imaging for presurgical planning measure the intersession reproducibility to determine an accurate surgical safety margin.
Authors: M I Ruge; J Victor; S Hosain; D D Correa; N R Relkin; V Tabar; C Brennan; P H Gutin; J Hirsch Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 1999 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: T Krings; M Schreckenberger; V Rohde; H Foltys; U Spetzger; O Sabri; M H Reinges; S Kemeny; P T Meyer; W Möller-Hartmann; M Korinth; J M Gilsbach; U Buell; A Thron Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: A Miki; J Raz; S A Englander; N S Butler; T G van Erp; J C Haselgrove; G T Liu Journal: Jpn J Ophthalmol Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: Gary H Glover; Bryon A Mueller; Jessica A Turner; Theo G M van Erp; Thomas T Liu; Douglas N Greve; James T Voyvodic; Jerod Rasmussen; Gregory G Brown; David B Keator; Vince D Calhoun; Hyo Jong Lee; Judith M Ford; Daniel H Mathalon; Michele Diaz; Daniel S O'Leary; Syam Gadde; Adrian Preda; Kelvin O Lim; Cynthia G Wible; Hal S Stern; Aysenil Belger; Gregory McCarthy; Burak Ozyurt; Steven G Potkin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gregory G Brown; Daniel H Mathalon; Hal Stern; Judith Ford; Bryon Mueller; Douglas N Greve; Gregory McCarthy; James Voyvodic; Gary Glover; Michele Diaz; Elizabeth Yetter; I Burak Ozyurt; Kasper W Jorgensen; Cynthia G Wible; Jessica A Turner; Wesley K Thompson; Steven G Potkin Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: John Suckling; Anna Barnes; Dominic Job; David Brennan; Katherine Lymer; Paola Dazzan; Tiago Reis Marques; Clare MacKay; Shane McKie; Steve R Williams; Steven C R Williams; Bill Deakin; Stephen Lawrie Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Andrew B Poppe; Deanna M Barch; Cameron S Carter; James M Gold; John Daniel Ragland; Steven M Silverstein; Angus W MacDonald Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 9.306