Xin Liu1, Yong Yang, Jubao Sun, Gang Yu, Jin Xu, Chen Niu, Hongjun Tian, Pan Lin. 1. Key Laboratory of Biomedical Information Engineering of Education Ministry, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, No. 28, Xianning West Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710049, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is very useful for investigating white matter integrity in ageing and neurological disorders; thus, evaluating its reproducibility under different acquisition protocols and analysis methods may assist in the design of clinical studies. METHODS: To measure the reproducibility of DTI in normal subjects, this study include (1) depicting the reproducibility of DTI measurements in commonly used regions-of-interest analysis by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV), (2) evaluating and comparing inter and intrasession test-retest reproducibility, and (3) illustrating the effect of the number of diffusion-encoding directions (NDED) and registration algorithms on measurement reproducibility. RESULTS: DTI measurements exhibit high reproducibility, with overall (430/480) ICC ≥ 0.70, (478/480) within-subject CV (CVws) ≤10.00 % and between-subject CV (CVbs) ranging from 1.32 to 13.63 %. Repeated measures ANOVAs and paired t tests were conducted to compare inter and intrasession reproducibility with different diffusion sampling schemes and registration algorithms. Our results also confirmed that increasing the NDED could improve the accuracy and reproducibility of DTI measurements. In addition, we compared reproducibility indices that were derived using different registration algorithms, and a tensor-based deformable registration yielded the most reproducible results. Finally, we found that increasing the NDED could reduce the difference between the reproducibility of measurement derived using different registration algorithms and between the reproducibility of intersession and intrasession. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the choice of DTI acquisition protocol and post-processing methods can influence the accurate estimation and reproducibility of DTI measurements and should be considered carefully for clinical applications.
INTRODUCTION: Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is very useful for investigating white matter integrity in ageing and neurological disorders; thus, evaluating its reproducibility under different acquisition protocols and analysis methods may assist in the design of clinical studies. METHODS: To measure the reproducibility of DTI in normal subjects, this study include (1) depicting the reproducibility of DTI measurements in commonly used regions-of-interest analysis by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV), (2) evaluating and comparing inter and intrasession test-retest reproducibility, and (3) illustrating the effect of the number of diffusion-encoding directions (NDED) and registration algorithms on measurement reproducibility. RESULTS: DTI measurements exhibit high reproducibility, with overall (430/480) ICC ≥ 0.70, (478/480) within-subject CV (CVws) ≤10.00 % and between-subject CV (CVbs) ranging from 1.32 to 13.63 %. Repeated measures ANOVAs and paired t tests were conducted to compare inter and intrasession reproducibility with different diffusion sampling schemes and registration algorithms. Our results also confirmed that increasing the NDED could improve the accuracy and reproducibility of DTI measurements. In addition, we compared reproducibility indices that were derived using different registration algorithms, and a tensor-based deformable registration yielded the most reproducible results. Finally, we found that increasing the NDED could reduce the difference between the reproducibility of measurement derived using different registration algorithms and between the reproducibility of intersession and intrasession. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the choice of DTI acquisition protocol and post-processing methods can influence the accurate estimation and reproducibility of DTI measurements and should be considered carefully for clinical applications.
Authors: Hae-Jeong Park; Marek Kubicki; Martha E Shenton; Alexandre Guimond; Robert W McCarley; Stephan E Maier; Ron Kikinis; Ferenc A Jolesz; Carl-Fredrik Westin Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jonathan A D Farrell; Bennett A Landman; Craig K Jones; Seth A Smith; Jerry L Prince; Peter C M van Zijl; Susumu Mori Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Niek E van der Aa; Frances J Northington; Brian S Stone; Floris Groenendaal; Manon J N L Benders; Giorgio Porro; Shoko Yoshida; Susumu Mori; Linda S de Vries; Jiangyang Zhang Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Christian Vollmar; Jonathan O'Muircheartaigh; Gareth J Barker; Mark R Symms; Pamela Thompson; Veena Kumari; John S Duncan; Mark P Richardson; Matthias J Koepp Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Pedro A Luque Laguna; Anna J E Combes; Johannes Streffer; Steven Einstein; Maarten Timmers; Steve C R Williams; Flavio Dell'Acqua Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Matteo Figini; Alessandro Scotti; Stefania Marcuzzo; Silvia Bonanno; Francesco Padelli; Victoria Moreno-Manzano; José Manuel García-Verdugo; Pia Bernasconi; Renato Mantegazza; Maria Grazia Bruzzone; Ileana Zucca Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francesco Sammartino; Vibhor Krishna; Nicolas Kon Kam King; Andres M Lozano; Michael L Schwartz; Yuexi Huang; Mojgan Hodaie Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 10.338