Hidemasa Takao1, Naoto Hayashi, Kuni Ohtomo. 1. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. takaoh-tky@umin.ac.jp
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of drift in scanner hardware and inter-scanner variability on global and regional brain volume changes using longitudinal data obtained on two scanners of the exact same model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 208 subjects (70 females and 138 males, mean age = 56.5 ± 10.1 years) were scanned twice, at an interval of approximately 2 years (mean interval = 1.9 ± 0.15 years), using two 3.0 Tesla (T) scanners of the exact same model. The subjects were divided into four groups according to the combination of scanners used. The effects of scanner drift and inter-scanner variability on global and regional brain volume changes were evaluated using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and structural image evaluation using normalization of atrophy (SIENA). RESULTS: The mean whole brain volume calculated using VBM increased by 17.2 ± 29.3 mL, and the changes were significantly different between groups. The mean percentage brain volume change (PBVC) calculated using SIENA was -0.46 ± 0.71 %, and did not differ between groups. VBM showed several regions with a significant increase or decrease in volume; however, SIENA showed that edge displacement values were negative in most regions. CONCLUSION: Even with scanners of the exact same model, scanner drift, and inter-scanner variability can cancel out actual longitudinal brain volume change. SIENA, which corrects for differences in imaging geometry using the outer skull surface for both time points, can reduce the effects of scanner drift and inter-scanner variability on longitudinal morphometric results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of drift in scanner hardware and inter-scanner variability on global and regional brain volume changes using longitudinal data obtained on two scanners of the exact same model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 208 subjects (70 females and 138 males, mean age = 56.5 ± 10.1 years) were scanned twice, at an interval of approximately 2 years (mean interval = 1.9 ± 0.15 years), using two 3.0 Tesla (T) scanners of the exact same model. The subjects were divided into four groups according to the combination of scanners used. The effects of scanner drift and inter-scanner variability on global and regional brain volume changes were evaluated using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and structural image evaluation using normalization of atrophy (SIENA). RESULTS: The mean whole brain volume calculated using VBM increased by 17.2 ± 29.3 mL, and the changes were significantly different between groups. The mean percentage brain volume change (PBVC) calculated using SIENA was -0.46 ± 0.71 %, and did not differ between groups. VBM showed several regions with a significant increase or decrease in volume; however, SIENA showed that edge displacement values were negative in most regions. CONCLUSION: Even with scanners of the exact same model, scanner drift, and inter-scanner variability can cancel out actual longitudinal brain volume change. SIENA, which corrects for differences in imaging geometry using the outer skull surface for both time points, can reduce the effects of scanner drift and inter-scanner variability on longitudinal morphometric results.
Authors: Edda Bilek; Matthias Ruf; Axel Schäfer; Ceren Akdeniz; Vince D Calhoun; Christian Schmahl; Charmaine Demanuele; Heike Tost; Peter Kirsch; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Yifeng Ling; François De Guio; Eric Jouvent; Marco Duering; Dominique Hervé; Jean Pierre Guichard; Ophélia Godin; Martin Dichgans; Hugues Chabriat Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Benjamin Seavey Cutler Wade; Michael Stockman; Michael Joseph McLaughlin; Armin Raznahan; Francois Lalonde; Jay Norman Giedd Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: François De Guio; Eric Jouvent; Geert Jan Biessels; Sandra E Black; Carol Brayne; Christopher Chen; Charlotte Cordonnier; Frank-Eric De Leeuw; Martin Dichgans; Fergus Doubal; Marco Duering; Carole Dufouil; Emrah Duzel; Franz Fazekas; Vladimir Hachinski; M Arfan Ikram; Jennifer Linn; Paul M Matthews; Bernard Mazoyer; Vincent Mok; Bo Norrving; John T O'Brien; Leonardo Pantoni; Stefan Ropele; Perminder Sachdev; Reinhold Schmidt; Sudha Seshadri; Eric E Smith; Luciano A Sposato; Blossom Stephan; Richard H Swartz; Christophe Tzourio; Mark van Buchem; Aad van der Lugt; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Meike W Vernooij; Anand Viswanathan; David Werring; Frank Wollenweber; Joanna M Wardlaw; Hugues Chabriat Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Jean-Philippe Fortin; Nicholas Cullen; Yvette I Sheline; Warren D Taylor; Irem Aselcioglu; Philip A Cook; Phil Adams; Crystal Cooper; Maurizio Fava; Patrick J McGrath; Melvin McInnis; Mary L Phillips; Madhukar H Trivedi; Myrna M Weissman; Russell T Shinohara Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Raymond Pomponio; Guray Erus; Mohamad Habes; Jimit Doshi; Dhivya Srinivasan; Elizabeth Mamourian; Vishnu Bashyam; Ilya M Nasrallah; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Yong Fan; Lenore J Launer; Colin L Masters; Paul Maruff; Chuanjun Zhuo; Henry Völzke; Sterling C Johnson; Jurgen Fripp; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Daniel H Wolf; Raquel Gur; Ruben Gur; John Morris; Marilyn S Albert; Hans J Grabe; Susan M Resnick; R Nick Bryan; David A Wolk; Russell T Shinohara; Haochang Shou; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 6.556