BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous neuroimaging studies have suggested asymmetries in brain diffusivity may exist. The purpose of this study was to assess whether water diffusivity in deep gray matter structures shown by diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging differs between the right and left cerebral hemispheres in normal individuals. METHODS: Brain MR imaging was obtained in 23 healthy volunteers. A multisection image without diffusion weighting, and images with weighting applied in the read, phase, and section directions with a b-factor of 1000 s/mm(2) were collected. Diffusivity was computed separately in each direction, and the results were averaged to form mean diffusivity maps. Quantitative diffusivity values were obtained from the globus pallidus, putamen, caudate, thalamus, white matter, and CSF by using a standardized region of interest template. Interhemispheric differences were assessed by using a paired sample t test. RESULTS: Mean diffusivity was higher in the: left (mean +/- SD: 0.689 x 10(-3)+/- 0.069 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus right (0.642 x 10(-3)+/- 0.071 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) caudate (% difference, P value: 7.0%, P = .001); right (0.745 x 10(-3)+/- 0.053 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus left (0.706 x 10(-3)+/- 0.050 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) globus pallidus (5.2%, P < .001); left (0.720 x 10(-3)+/- 0.059 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus right (0.674 x 10(-3)+/- 0.052 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) putamen (6.4%, P < .001); right (0.750 x 10(-3)+/- 0.040 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus left (0.716 x 10(-3)+/- 0.031 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) thalamus (4.5%, P < .001). No significant right versus left difference was seen in the CSF (P = .291), anterior frontal white matter (P = .834), or centrum semiovale (P = .320). CONCLUSION: Gray matter diffusivity may differ between hemispheres of the brain in healthy individuals. Analysis of deep gray matter lesions requires caution, as statistically significant interhemispheric differences may not always be indicative of disease.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous neuroimaging studies have suggested asymmetries in brain diffusivity may exist. The purpose of this study was to assess whether water diffusivity in deep gray matter structures shown by diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging differs between the right and left cerebral hemispheres in normal individuals. METHODS: Brain MR imaging was obtained in 23 healthy volunteers. A multisection image without diffusion weighting, and images with weighting applied in the read, phase, and section directions with a b-factor of 1000 s/mm(2) were collected. Diffusivity was computed separately in each direction, and the results were averaged to form mean diffusivity maps. Quantitative diffusivity values were obtained from the globus pallidus, putamen, caudate, thalamus, white matter, and CSF by using a standardized region of interest template. Interhemispheric differences were assessed by using a paired sample t test. RESULTS: Mean diffusivity was higher in the: left (mean +/- SD: 0.689 x 10(-3)+/- 0.069 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus right (0.642 x 10(-3)+/- 0.071 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) caudate (% difference, P value: 7.0%, P = .001); right (0.745 x 10(-3)+/- 0.053 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus left (0.706 x 10(-3)+/- 0.050 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) globus pallidus (5.2%, P < .001); left (0.720 x 10(-3)+/- 0.059 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus right (0.674 x 10(-3)+/- 0.052 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) putamen (6.4%, P < .001); right (0.750 x 10(-3)+/- 0.040 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) versus left (0.716 x 10(-3)+/- 0.031 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) thalamus (4.5%, P < .001). No significant right versus left difference was seen in the CSF (P = .291), anterior frontal white matter (P = .834), or centrum semiovale (P = .320). CONCLUSION: Gray matter diffusivity may differ between hemispheres of the brain in healthy individuals. Analysis of deep gray matter lesions requires caution, as statistically significant interhemispheric differences may not always be indicative of disease.
Authors: E A Hazlett; M S Buchsbaum; W Byne; T C Wei; J Spiegel-Cohen; C Geneve; R Kinderlehrer; M M Haznedar; L Shihabuddin; L J Siever Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: S M Lawrie; H C Whalley; S S Abukmeil; J N Kestelman; L Donnelly; P Miller; J J Best; D G Owens; E C Johnstone Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Pek-Lan Khong; Dora L W Kwong; Godfrey C F Chan; Jonathan S T Sham; Fu-Luk Chan; Gaik-Cheng Ooi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Robert A Bermel; Srinivas R Puli; Richard A Rudick; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Elizabeth Fisher; Frederick E Munschauer; Rohit Bakshi Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-09
Authors: D S Reich; S A Smith; C K Jones; K M Zackowski; P C van Zijl; P A Calabresi; S Mori Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alina Jurcoane; Marcel Daamen; Lukas Scheef; Josef G Bäuml; Chun Meng; Afra M Wohlschläger; Christian Sorg; Barbara Busch; Nicole Baumann; Dieter Wolke; Peter Bartmann; Elke Hattingen; Henning Boecker Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: F Natali; C Dolce; J Peters; C Stelletta; B Demé; J Ollivier; M Boehm; G Leduc; I Piazza; A Cupane; E L Barbier Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Elisabeth A Wilde; Stephen R McCauley; Zili Chu; Jill V Hunter; Erin D Bigler; Ragini Yallampalli; Zhiyue J Wang; Gerri Hanten; Xiaoqi Li; Marco A Ramos; Sharjeel H Sabir; Ana C Vasquez; Deleene Menefee; Harvey S Levin Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Nadja Schönberg; Christian Weisstanner; Roland Wiest; Harald M Bonél; Eike I Piechowiak; Jennifer L Cullmann; Luigi Raio; Manuela Pastore-Wapp; Nedelina Slavova Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.486