Vanessa A Lukas1, Kenneth W Fishbein1, David A Reiter1, Ping-Chang Lin2, Erika Schneider3, Richard G Spencer1. 1. Laboratory of Clinical Investigation, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 3. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of classification of pathomimetically degraded bovine nasal cartilage at 3 Tesla and 37°C using univariate MRI measurements of both pure parameter values and intensities of parameter-weighted images. METHODS: Pre- and posttrypsin degradation values of T1 , T2 , T2 *, magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and corresponding weighted images, were analyzed. Classification based on the Euclidean distance was performed and the quality of classification was assessed through sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (ACC). RESULTS: The classifiers with the highest accuracy values were ADC (ACC = 0.82 ± 0.06), MTR (ACC = 0.78 ± 0.06), T1 (ACC = 0.99 ± 0.01), T2 derived from a three-dimensional (3D) spin-echo sequence (ACC = 0.74 ± 0.05), and T2 derived from a 2D spin-echo sequence (ACC = 0.77 ± 0.06), along with two of the diffusion-weighted signal intensities (b = 333 s/mm(2) : ACC = 0.80 ± 0.05; b = 666 s/mm(2) : ACC = 0.85 ± 0.04). In particular, T1 values differed substantially between the groups, resulting in atypically high classification accuracy. The second-best classifier, diffusion weighting with b = 666 s/mm(2) , as well as all other parameters evaluated, exhibited substantial overlap between pre- and postdegradation groups, resulting in decreased accuracies. CONCLUSION: Classification according to T1 values showed excellent test characteristics (ACC = 0.99), with several other parameters also showing reasonable performance (ACC > 0.70). Of these, diffusion weighting is particularly promising as a potentially practical clinical modality. As in previous work, we again find that highly statistically significant group mean differences do not necessarily translate into accurate clinical classification rules.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of classification of pathomimetically degraded bovine nasal cartilage at 3 Tesla and 37°C using univariate MRI measurements of both pure parameter values and intensities of parameter-weighted images. METHODS: Pre- and posttrypsin degradation values of T1 , T2 , T2 *, magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and corresponding weighted images, were analyzed. Classification based on the Euclidean distance was performed and the quality of classification was assessed through sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (ACC). RESULTS: The classifiers with the highest accuracy values were ADC (ACC = 0.82 ± 0.06), MTR (ACC = 0.78 ± 0.06), T1 (ACC = 0.99 ± 0.01), T2 derived from a three-dimensional (3D) spin-echo sequence (ACC = 0.74 ± 0.05), and T2 derived from a 2D spin-echo sequence (ACC = 0.77 ± 0.06), along with two of the diffusion-weighted signal intensities (b = 333 s/mm(2) : ACC = 0.80 ± 0.05; b = 666 s/mm(2) : ACC = 0.85 ± 0.04). In particular, T1 values differed substantially between the groups, resulting in atypically high classification accuracy. The second-best classifier, diffusion weighting with b = 666 s/mm(2) , as well as all other parameters evaluated, exhibited substantial overlap between pre- and postdegradation groups, resulting in decreased accuracies. CONCLUSION: Classification according to T1 values showed excellent test characteristics (ACC = 0.99), with several other parameters also showing reasonable performance (ACC > 0.70). Of these, diffusion weighting is particularly promising as a potentially practical clinical modality. As in previous work, we again find that highly statistically significant group mean differences do not necessarily translate into accurate clinical classification rules.
Authors: David A Reiter; Remigio A Roque; Ping-Chang Lin; Stephen B Doty; Nancy Pleshko; Richard G Spencer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Anne-Christine Bay-Jensen; Suzi Hoegh-Madsen; Erik Dam; Kim Henriksen; Bodil Cecillie Sondergaard; Philippe Pastoureau; Per Qvist; Morten A Karsdal Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Vanessa A Lukas; Kenneth W Fishbein; Ping-Chang Lin; Michael Schär; Erika Schneider; Corey P Neu; Richard G Spencer; David A Reiter Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Teodoro Martín Noguerol; Jose G Raya; Daniel E Wessell; Joan C Vilanova; Ignacio Rossi; Antonio Luna Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Tobias Hafner; Justus Schock; Manuel Post; Daniel Benjamin Abrar; Philipp Sewerin; Kevin Linka; Matthias Knobe; Christiane Kuhl; Daniel Truhn; Sven Nebelung Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.379