BACKGROUND: Changes of signal intensities (SIs) across intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS) on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) may reflect hemodynamic impact of the lesion. We evaluated the interobserver reproducibility of an index termed signal intensity ratio (SIR), developed in a previous study to represent the changes of SIs across ICAS on MRA. METHODS: Symptomatic ICAS on MRA were retrospectively recruited. Two observers respectively evaluated the images and calculated the SIR as follows, blinded to each other's readings: SIR=(mean poststenotic SI-mean background SI)/(mean prestenotic SI-mean background SI). Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the interobserver reproducibility of this index. RESULTS: A total of 102 symptomatic ICASs were enrolled, with 36 (35.3%) lesions of 50%-69% MRA stenoses and others being 70%-99% stenoses or flow void on MRA. Overall, mean SIRs were not significantly different between the 2 observers (.92±.17 versus .93±.17; mean difference -.006±.09; P=.496 for paired t test). Pearson correlation coefficients were >.80 for all analyses, indicating strong linear correlations between SIRs by the 2 observers. Bland-Altman analysis for SIRs of all cases showed no systematic bias between the 2 observers. For different cut-points ranging from .75 to 1.00, the kappa statistics were mostly greater than .6 and interobserver agreements were all greater than 80%, implying substantial agreement between observers. CONCLUSIONS: SIR was demonstrated to be highly reproducible between observers in the present study. Future studies are warranted to further explore the role of this index in comprehensive evaluation and risk stratification of symptomatic ICAS.
BACKGROUND: Changes of signal intensities (SIs) across intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS) on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) may reflect hemodynamic impact of the lesion. We evaluated the interobserver reproducibility of an index termed signal intensity ratio (SIR), developed in a previous study to represent the changes of SIs across ICAS on MRA. METHODS: Symptomatic ICAS on MRA were retrospectively recruited. Two observers respectively evaluated the images and calculated the SIR as follows, blinded to each other's readings: SIR=(mean poststenotic SI-mean background SI)/(mean prestenotic SI-mean background SI). Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the interobserver reproducibility of this index. RESULTS: A total of 102 symptomatic ICASs were enrolled, with 36 (35.3%) lesions of 50%-69% MRA stenoses and others being 70%-99% stenoses or flow void on MRA. Overall, mean SIRs were not significantly different between the 2 observers (.92±.17 versus .93±.17; mean difference -.006±.09; P=.496 for paired t test). Pearson correlation coefficients were >.80 for all analyses, indicating strong linear correlations between SIRs by the 2 observers. Bland-Altman analysis for SIRs of all cases showed no systematic bias between the 2 observers. For different cut-points ranging from .75 to 1.00, the kappa statistics were mostly greater than .6 and interobserver agreements were all greater than 80%, implying substantial agreement between observers. CONCLUSIONS: SIR was demonstrated to be highly reproducible between observers in the present study. Future studies are warranted to further explore the role of this index in comprehensive evaluation and risk stratification of symptomatic ICAS.
Authors: Xinyi Leng; Lawrence K S Wong; Yannie Soo; Thomas Leung; Xinying Zou; Yongjun Wang; Edward Feldmann; Liping Liu; David Liebeskind Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Scott E Kasner; Marc I Chimowitz; Michael J Lynn; Harriet Howlett-Smith; Barney J Stern; Vicki S Hertzberg; Michael R Frankel; Steven R Levine; Seemant Chaturvedi; Curtis G Benesch; Cathy A Sila; Tudor G Jovin; Jose G Romano; Harry J Cloft Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-01-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E Feldmann; J L Wilterdink; A Kosinski; M Lynn; M I Chimowitz; J Sarafin; H H Smith; F Nichols; J Rogg; H J Cloft; L Wechsler; J Saver; S R Levine; C Tegeler; R Adams; M Sloan Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Marc I Chimowitz; Michael J Lynn; Colin P Derdeyn; Tanya N Turan; David Fiorella; Bethany F Lane; L Scott Janis; Helmi L Lutsep; Stanley L Barnwell; Michael F Waters; Brian L Hoh; J Maurice Hourihane; Elad I Levy; Andrei V Alexandrov; Mark R Harrigan; David Chiu; Richard P Klucznik; Joni M Clark; Cameron G McDougall; Mark D Johnson; G Lee Pride; Michel T Torbey; Osama O Zaidat; Zoran Rumboldt; Harry J Cloft Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James K Min; Jonathon Leipsic; Michael J Pencina; Daniel S Berman; Bon-Kwon Koo; Carlos van Mieghem; Andrejs Erglis; Fay Y Lin; Allison M Dunning; Patricia Apruzzese; Matthew J Budoff; Jason H Cole; Farouc A Jaffer; Martin B Leon; Jennifer Malpeso; G B John Mancini; Seung-Jung Park; Robert S Schwartz; Leslee J Shaw; Laura Mauri Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Xinyi Leng; Ka Sing Wong; Yannie Soo; Thomas Leung; Xinying Zou; Yongjun Wang; Edward Feldmann; Liping Liu; David S Liebeskind Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: X Ge; H Zhao; Z Zhou; X Li; B Sun; H Wu; J Wan; J Xu; J P Villablanca; X Liu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K Sato; M Yamada; H Kuroda; D Yamamoto; Y Asano; Y Inoue; K Fujii; T Kumabe Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David S Liebeskind; Andrzej S Kosinski; Michael J Lynn; Fabien Scalzo; Albert K Fong; Pari Fariborz; Marc I Chimowitz; Edward Feldmann Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Xinyi Leng; Ka Sing Wong; Yannie Soo; Thomas Leung; Xinying Zou; Yongjun Wang; Edward Feldmann; Liping Liu; David S Liebeskind Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.240