PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate the factors--including subject, brain hemisphere, study site, field strength, imaging unit vendor, imaging run, and examination visit--affecting the reproducibility of functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging activations based on a repeated sensory-motor (SM) task. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review boards of all participating sites approved this HIPAA-compliant study. All subjects gave informed consent. Functional MR imaging data were repeatedly acquired from five healthy men aged 20-29 years who performed the same SM task at 10 sites. Five 1.5-T MR imaging units, four 3.0-T units, and one 4.0-T unit were used. The subjects performed bilateral finger tapping on button boxes with a 3-Hz audio cue and a reversing checkerboard. In a block design, 15-second epochs of alternating baseline and tasks yielded 85 acquisitions per run. Functional MR images were acquired with block-design echo-planar or spiral gradient-echo sequences. Brain activation maps standardized in a unit-sphere for the left and right hemispheres of each subject were constructed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve, intraclass correlation coefficients, multiple regression analysis, and paired Student t tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Significant factors were subject (P < .005), k-space (P < .005), and field strength (P = .02) for sensitivity and subject (P = .03) and k-space (P = .05) for specificity. At 1.5-T MR imaging, mean sensitivities ranged from 7% to 32% and mean specificities were higher than 99%. At 3.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 42% to 85% and from 96% to 99%, respectively. At 4.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 41% to 73% and from 95% to 99%, respectively. Mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (+/- their standard errors) were 0.77 +/- 0.05 at 1.5 T, 0.90 +/- 0.09 at 3.0 T, and 0.95 +/- 0.02 at 4.0 T, with significant differences between the 1.5- and 3.0-T examinations and between the 1.5- and 4.0-T examinations (P < .01 for both comparisons). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.49 to 0.71. CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 3.0- and 4.0-T yielded higher reproducibility across sites and significantly better results than 1.5-T imaging. The effects of subject, k-space, and field strength on examination reproducibility were significant. RSNA, 2005
PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate the factors--including subject, brain hemisphere, study site, field strength, imaging unit vendor, imaging run, and examination visit--affecting the reproducibility of functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging activations based on a repeated sensory-motor (SM) task. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review boards of all participating sites approved this HIPAA-compliant study. All subjects gave informed consent. Functional MR imaging data were repeatedly acquired from five healthy men aged 20-29 years who performed the same SM task at 10 sites. Five 1.5-T MR imaging units, four 3.0-T units, and one 4.0-T unit were used. The subjects performed bilateral finger tapping on button boxes with a 3-Hz audio cue and a reversing checkerboard. In a block design, 15-second epochs of alternating baseline and tasks yielded 85 acquisitions per run. Functional MR images were acquired with block-design echo-planar or spiral gradient-echo sequences. Brain activation maps standardized in a unit-sphere for the left and right hemispheres of each subject were constructed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve, intraclass correlation coefficients, multiple regression analysis, and paired Student t tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Significant factors were subject (P < .005), k-space (P < .005), and field strength (P = .02) for sensitivity and subject (P = .03) and k-space (P = .05) for specificity. At 1.5-T MR imaging, mean sensitivities ranged from 7% to 32% and mean specificities were higher than 99%. At 3.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 42% to 85% and from 96% to 99%, respectively. At 4.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 41% to 73% and from 95% to 99%, respectively. Mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (+/- their standard errors) were 0.77 +/- 0.05 at 1.5 T, 0.90 +/- 0.09 at 3.0 T, and 0.95 +/- 0.02 at 4.0 T, with significant differences between the 1.5- and 3.0-T examinations and between the 1.5- and 4.0-T examinations (P < .01 for both comparisons). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.49 to 0.71. CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 3.0- and 4.0-T yielded higher reproducibility across sites and significantly better results than 1.5-T imaging. The effects of subject, k-space, and field strength on examination reproducibility were significant. RSNA, 2005
Authors: K Luan Phan; Israel Liberzon; Robert C Welsh; Jennifer C Britton; Stephan F Taylor Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2003-04-23 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Xingchang Wei; Seung-Schik Yoo; Chandlee C Dickey; Kelly H Zou; Charles R G Guttmann; Lawrence P Panych Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kelly H Zou; Simon K Warfield; Julia R Fielding; Clare M C Tempany; M Wells William; Michael R Kaus; Ferenc A Jolesz; Ron Kikinis Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anastasia Yendiki; Douglas N Greve; Stuart Wallace; Mark Vangel; Jeremy Bockholt; Bryon A Mueller; Vince Magnotta; Nancy Andreasen; Dara S Manoach; Randy L Gollub Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Lee Friedman; Hal Stern; Gregory G Brown; Daniel H Mathalon; Jessica Turner; Gary H Glover; Randy L Gollub; John Lauriello; Kelvin O Lim; Tyrone Cannon; Douglas N Greve; Henry Jeremy Bockholt; Aysenil Belger; Bryon Mueller; Michael J Doty; Jianchun He; William Wells; Padhraic Smyth; Steve Pieper; Seyoung Kim; Marek Kubicki; Mark Vangel; Steven G Potkin Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.038