H Ni1, V Kavcic, T Zhu, S Ekholm, J Zhong. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The effects of a number of diffusion-encoding gradient directions (NDGD) on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indices have been studied previously with theoretic analysis and numeric simulations. In this study, we made in vivo measurements in the human brain to compare different clinical scan protocols and to evaluate their effects on the calculated DTI indices. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers were scanned with a 1.5T MR scanner. Single-shot DTI images were acquired using 3 protocols different in NDGD and number of excitations (NEX) for each direction (NDGD/NEX = 6/10, 21/3, 31/2). Means and standard error of mean (SEM) were calculated and compared in 6 regions of interest (ROIs) for mean diffusivity (D), fractional anisotropy (FA), diffusion tensor eigenvalues (lambda(1), lambda(2), and lambda(3)), and correlation coefficients (r) of these indices among the 3 DTI protocols. RESULTS: At the ROI level, no significant differences were found for the mean and SEM of D and FA among protocols (P > .05). The 6-NDGD protocol, however, yielded higher values for lambda(1) and lambda(2) and lower values for lambda(3) in most ROIs (P < .05) compared with the other protocols. At the voxel level, the correlation between the protocols r(21-31) were higher than r(6-21) and r(6-31) in most ROIs. The correlation of FA among 3 protocols also increased with increasing anisotropy. CONCLUSION: For ROI analyses, different NDGDs lead to similar values of FA and D but different eigenvalues. However, different NDGDs at the voxel level provide varying values. The selection of the NDGD, therefore, should depend on the focus of different DTI applications.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The effects of a number of diffusion-encoding gradient directions (NDGD) on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indices have been studied previously with theoretic analysis and numeric simulations. In this study, we made in vivo measurements in the human brain to compare different clinical scan protocols and to evaluate their effects on the calculated DTI indices. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers were scanned with a 1.5T MR scanner. Single-shot DTI images were acquired using 3 protocols different in NDGD and number of excitations (NEX) for each direction (NDGD/NEX = 6/10, 21/3, 31/2). Means and standard error of mean (SEM) were calculated and compared in 6 regions of interest (ROIs) for mean diffusivity (D), fractional anisotropy (FA), diffusion tensor eigenvalues (lambda(1), lambda(2), and lambda(3)), and correlation coefficients (r) of these indices among the 3 DTI protocols. RESULTS: At the ROI level, no significant differences were found for the mean and SEM of D and FA among protocols (P > .05). The 6-NDGD protocol, however, yielded higher values for lambda(1) and lambda(2) and lower values for lambda(3) in most ROIs (P < .05) compared with the other protocols. At the voxel level, the correlation between the protocols r(21-31) were higher than r(6-21) and r(6-31) in most ROIs. The correlation of FA among 3 protocols also increased with increasing anisotropy. CONCLUSION: For ROI analyses, different NDGDs lead to similar values of FA and D but different eigenvalues. However, different NDGDs at the voxel level provide varying values. The selection of the NDGD, therefore, should depend on the focus of different DTI applications.
Authors: N G Papadakis; D Xing; G C Houston; J M Smith; M I Smith; M F James; A A Parsons; C L Huang; L D Hall; T A Carpenter Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Setsu Wakana; Hangyi Jiang; Lidia M Nagae-Poetscher; Peter C M van Zijl; Susumu Mori Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Neeraj B Chepuri; Yi-Fen Yen; Jonathan H Burdette; Hong Li; Dixon M Moody; Joseph A Maldjian Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Götz Thomalla; Volkmar Glauche; Martin A Koch; Christian Beaulieu; Cornelius Weiller; Joachim Röther Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Marco Bozzali; Mara Cercignani; Maria Pia Sormani; Giancarlo Comi; Massimo Filippi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hans-Peter Müller; Sigurd D Süssmuth; G Bernhard Landwehrmeyer; Albert Ludolph; Sarah J Tabrizi; Stefan Kloppel; Jan Kassubek Journal: PLoS Curr Date: 2011-12-12
Authors: Atilla Gönenç; Jean A Frazier; David J Crowley; Constance M Moore Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: A Ozturk; A D Sasson; J A D Farrell; B A Landman; A C B S da Motta; A Aralasmak; D M Yousem Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Samantha By; Alex K Smith; Lindsey M Dethrage; Bailey D Lyttle; Bennett A Landman; Jeffrey L Creasy; Siddharama Pawate; Seth A Smith Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 4.813