Morphometry of brain structures based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data has become an important tool in neurobiology. Recent multicenter studies in neurodegenerative diseases raised the issue of the precision of volumetric measures, and their dependence on the scanner properties and imaging protocol. A large dataset consisting of 1073 MRI examinations in 843 subjects, acquired on 90 scanners at 58 sites, is analyzed here. A comprehensive set of image quality and content measures is used to describe the influence of the scanner hardware and imaging protocol on the variability of morphometric measures. Scanners equipped with array coils show a remarkable advantage over conventional coils in terms of image quality measures. The signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio in similar systems is equal or slightly better at 1.5 T than 3.0 T, while the white/grey matter tissue contrast is generally better on high-field systems. Repeated MRI investigations on the same scanner were available in 41 subjects, on different scanners in 172 subjects. The retest reliability of repeated volumetric measures under the same conditions was found as sufficient to track changes in longitudinal examinations in individual subjects. Using different acquisition conditions in the same subject, however, the variance of volumetric measures was up to 10 times greater. Two likely factors explaining this finding are scanner-dependent geometrical inaccuracies and differences in the white/grey matter tissue contrast. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Morphometry of brain span class="Gene">tructures based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data has become an important tool in neurobiology. Recent multicenter studies in neurodegenerative diseases raised the issue of the precision of volumetric measures, and their dependence on the scanner properties and imaging protocol. A large dataset consisting of 1073 MRI examinations in 843 subjects, acquired on 90 scanners at 58 sites, is analyzed here. A comprehensive set of image quality and content measures is used to describe the influence of the scanner hardware and imaging protocol on the variability of morphometric measures. Scanners equipped with array coils show a remarkable advantage over conventional coils in terms of image quality measures. The signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio in similar systems is equal or slightly better at 1.5 T than 3.0 T, while the white/grey matter tissue contrast is generally better on high-field systems. Repeated MRI investigations on the same scanner were available in 41 subjects, on different scanners in 172 subjects. The retest reliability of repeated volumetric measures under the same conditions was found as sufficient to track changes in longitudinal examinations in individual subjects. Using different acquisition conditions in the same subject, however, the variance of volumetric measures was up to 10 times greater. Two likely factors explaining this finding are scanner-dependent geometrical inaccuracies and differences in the white/grey matter tissue contrast. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Neeltje E M van Haren; Wiepke Cahn; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol; Hugo G Schnack; Esther Caspers; Adriaan Lemstra; Margriet M Sitskoorn; Durk Wiersma; Rob J van den Bosch; Peter M Dingemans; Aart H Schene; René S Kahn Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Hugo G Schnack; Neeltje E M van Haren; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol; Marco Picchioni; Matthias Weisbrod; Heinrich Sauer; Tyrone Cannon; Matti Huttunen; Robin Murray; René S Kahn Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: C R Jack; M M Shiung; S D Weigand; P C O'Brien; J L Gunter; B F Boeve; D S Knopman; G E Smith; R J Ivnik; E G Tangalos; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Susanne G Mueller; Michael W Weiner; Leon J Thal; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford Jack; William Jagust; John Q Trojanowski; Arthur W Toga; Laurel Beckett Journal: Neuroimaging Clin N Am Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Matthew J Clarkson; Sébastien Ourselin; Casper Nielsen; Kelvin K Leung; Josephine Barnes; Jennifer L Whitwell; Jeffrey L Gunter; Derek L G Hill; Michael W Weiner; Clifford R Jack; Nick C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Clifford R Jack; William J Jagust; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie Shaw; Andrew J Saykin; John C Morris; Nigel Cairns; Laurel A Beckett; Arthur Toga; Robert Green; Sarah Walter; Holly Soares; Peter Snyder; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Patricia E Cole; Mark Schmidt Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Enchi Liu; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Mark E Schmidt; Leslie Shaw; Judith A Siuciak; Holly Soares; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Matthew S Panizzon; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Thomas S Kubarych; Chi-Hua Chen; Lisa T Eyler; Bruce Fischl; Carol E Franz; Michael D Grant; Samar Hamza; Amy Jak; Terry L Jernigan; Michael J Lyons; Michael C Neale; Elizabeth C Prom-Wormley; Larry Seidman; Ming T Tsuang; Hao Wu; Hong Xian; Anders M Dale; William S Kremen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Mona K Beyer; Kolbjorn S Bronnick; Kristy S Hwang; Niels Bergsland; Ole Bjorn Tysnes; Jan Petter Larsen; Paul M Thompson; Johanne H Somme; Liana G Apostolova Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Aikaterini Kotrotsou; David A Bennett; Julie A Schneider; Robert J Dawe; Tom Golak; Sue E Leurgans; Lei Yu; Konstantinos Arfanakis Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 4.668