Zahra Shirzadi1,2, David E Crane2, Andrew D Robertson2, Pejman J Maralani3,4, Richard I Aviv3,4, Michael A Chappell5,6, Benjamin I Goldstein2,3,7, Sandra E Black2,3,8, Bradley J MacIntosh1,2,3. 1. Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. HSF Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6. Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 7. Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of rejecting intermediate cerebral blood flow (CBF) images that are adversely affected by head motion during an arterial spin labeling (ASL) acquisition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty participants were recruited, representing a wide age range (14-90 years) and heterogeneous cerebrovascular health conditions including bipolar disorder, chronic stroke, and moderate to severe white matter hyperintensities of presumed vascular origin. Pseudocontinuous ASL and T1 -weigthed anatomical images were acquired on a 3T scanner. ASL intermediate CBF images were included based on their contribution to the mean estimate, with the goal to maximize CBF detectability in gray matter (GM). Simulations were conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed optimization procedure relative to other ASL postprocessing approaches. Clinical CBF images were also assessed visually by two experienced neuroradiologists. RESULTS: Optimized CBF images (CBFopt ) had significantly greater agreement with a synthetic ground truth CBF image and greater CBF detectability relative to the other ASL analysis methods (P < 0.05). Moreover, empirical CBFopt images showed a significantly improved signal-to-noise ratio relative to CBF images obtained from other postprocessing approaches (mean: 12.6%; range 1% to 56%; P < 0.001), and this improvement was age-dependent (P = 0.03). Differences between CBF images from different analysis procedures were not perceptible by visual inspection, while there was a moderate agreement between the ratings (κ = 0.44, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study developed an automated head motion threshold-free procedure to improve the detection of CBF in GM. The improvement in CBF image quality was larger when considering older participants.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of rejecting intermediate cerebral blood flow (CBF) images that are adversely affected by head motion during an arterial spin labeling (ASL) acquisition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty participants were recruited, representing a wide age range (14-90 years) and heterogeneous cerebrovascular health conditions including bipolar disorder, chronic stroke, and moderate to severe white matter hyperintensities of presumed vascular origin. Pseudocontinuous ASL and T1 -weigthed anatomical images were acquired on a 3T scanner. ASL intermediate CBF images were included based on their contribution to the mean estimate, with the goal to maximize CBF detectability in gray matter (GM). Simulations were conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed optimization procedure relative to other ASL postprocessing approaches. Clinical CBF images were also assessed visually by two experienced neuroradiologists. RESULTS: Optimized CBF images (CBFopt ) had significantly greater agreement with a synthetic ground truth CBF image and greater CBF detectability relative to the other ASL analysis methods (P < 0.05). Moreover, empirical CBFopt images showed a significantly improved signal-to-noise ratio relative to CBF images obtained from other postprocessing approaches (mean: 12.6%; range 1% to 56%; P < 0.001), and this improvement was age-dependent (P = 0.03). Differences between CBF images from different analysis procedures were not perceptible by visual inspection, while there was a moderate agreement between the ratings (κ = 0.44, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study developed an automated head motion threshold-free procedure to improve the detection of CBF in GM. The improvement in CBF image quality was larger when considering older participants.
Authors: Ramy Ayoub; Rebecca M Ruddy; Elizabeth Cox; Adeoye Oyefiade; Daniel Derkach; Suzanne Laughlin; Benjamin Ades-Aron; Zahra Shirzadi; Els Fieremans; Bradley J MacIntosh; Cynthia B de Medeiros; Jovanka Skocic; Eric Bouffet; Freda D Miller; Cindi M Morshead; Donald J Mabbott Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Seyed-Parsa Hojjat; Charles Grady Cantrell; Rita Vitorino; Anthony Feinstein; Zahra Shirzadi; Bradley J MacIntosh; David E Crane; Lying Zhang; Sarah A Morrow; Liesly Lee; Paul O'Connor; Timothy J Carroll; Richard I Aviv Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Yang Li; Peiying Liu; Yue Li; Hongli Fan; Pan Su; Shin-Lei Peng; Denise C Park; Karen M Rodrigue; Hangyi Jiang; Andreia V Faria; Can Ceritoglu; Michael Miller; Susumu Mori; Hanzhang Lu Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-12-26 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Kathleen A Page; Shan Luo; Xinhui Wang; Ting Chow; Jasmin Alves; Thomas A Buchanan; Anny H Xiang Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: R M D'Ortenzio; S P Hojjat; R Vitorino; C G Cantrell; L Lee; A Feinstein; P O'Connor; T J Carroll; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Henri J M M Mutsaerts; Jan Petr; David L Thomas; Enrico De Vita; David M Cash; Matthias J P van Osch; Xavier Golay; Paul F C Groot; Sebastien Ourselin; John van Swieten; Robert Laforce; Fabrizio Tagliavini; Barbara Borroni; Daniela Galimberti; James B Rowe; Caroline Graff; Francesca B Pizzini; Elizabeth Finger; Sandro Sorbi; Miguel Castelo Branco; Jonathan D Rohrer; Mario Masellis; Bradley J MacIntosh Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sabrina Jones; Shan Luo; Hilary M Dorton; Brendan Angelo; Alexandra G Yunker; John R Monterosso; Kathleen A Page Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Andrew D Robertson; Susan Marzolini; Laura E Middleton; Vincenzo S Basile; Paul I Oh; Bradley J MacIntosh Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 5.750