E M Palacios1, A J Martin1, M A Boss2, F Ezekiel1, Y S Chang1, E L Yuh1,3, M J Vassar4,3, D M Schnyer5, C L MacDonald6, K L Crawford7, A Irimia7, A W Toga7, P Mukherjee8,9,3. 1. From the Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (E.M.P., A.J.M., F.E., Y.S.C., E.L.Y., P.M.). 2. National Institute of Standards and Technology (M.A.B.), Boulder, Colorado. 3. Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Center (E.L.Y., M.J.V., P.M.), San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California. 4. Neurological Surgery and Brain and Spinal Injury Center (M.J.V.). 5. Department of Psychology (D.M.S.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas. 6. Department of Neurological Surgery (C.L.M.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 7. Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute (K.L.C., A.I., A.W.T.), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 8. From the Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (E.M.P., A.J.M., F.E., Y.S.C., E.L.Y., P.M.) pratik.mukherjee@ucsf.edu. 9. Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences (P.M.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Precision medicine is an approach to disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention that relies on quantitative biomarkers that minimize the variability of individual patient measurements. The aim of this study was to assess the intersite variability after harmonization of a high-angular-resolution 3T diffusion tensor imaging protocol across 13 scanners at the 11 academic medical centers participating in the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury multisite study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diffusion MR imaging was acquired from a novel isotropic diffusion phantom developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and from the brain of a traveling volunteer on thirteen 3T MR imaging scanners representing 3 major vendors (GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens). Means of the DTI parameters and their coefficients of variation across scanners were calculated for each DTI metric and white matter tract. RESULTS: For the National Institute of Standards and Technology diffusion phantom, the coefficients of variation of the apparent diffusion coefficient across the 13 scanners was <3.8% for a range of diffusivities from 0.4 to 1.1 × 10-6 mm2/s. For the volunteer, the coefficients of variations across scanners of the 4 primary DTI metrics, each averaged over the entire white matter skeleton, were all <5%. In individual white matter tracts, large central pathways showed good reproducibility with the coefficients of variation consistently below 5%. However, smaller tracts showed more variability, with the coefficients of variation of some DTI metrics reaching 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest the feasibility of standardizing DTI across 3T scanners from different MR imaging vendors in a large-scale neuroimaging research study.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Precision medicine is an approach to disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention that relies on quantitative biomarkers that minimize the variability of individual patient measurements. The aim of this study was to assess the intersite variability after harmonization of a high-angular-resolution 3T diffusion tensor imaging protocol across 13 scanners at the 11 academic medical centers participating in the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury multisite study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diffusion MR imaging was acquired from a novel isotropic diffusion phantom developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and from the brain of a traveling volunteer on thirteen 3T MR imaging scanners representing 3 major vendors (GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens). Means of the DTI parameters and their coefficients of variation across scanners were calculated for each DTI metric and white matter tract. RESULTS: For the National Institute of Standards and Technology diffusion phantom, the coefficients of variation of the apparent diffusion coefficient across the 13 scanners was <3.8% for a range of diffusivities from 0.4 to 1.1 × 10-6 mm2/s. For the volunteer, the coefficients of variations across scanners of the 4 primary DTI metrics, each averaged over the entire white matter skeleton, were all <5%. In individual white matter tracts, large central pathways showed good reproducibility with the coefficients of variation consistently below 5%. However, smaller tracts showed more variability, with the coefficients of variation of some DTI metrics reaching 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest the feasibility of standardizing DTI across 3T scanners from different MR imaging vendors in a large-scale neuroimaging research study.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Daniel L Polders; Alexander Leemans; Jeroen Hendrikse; Manus J Donahue; Peter R Luijten; Johannes M Hoogduin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Vincent A Magnotta; Joy T Matsui; Dawei Liu; Hans J Johnson; Jeffrey D Long; Bradley D Bolster; Bryon A Mueller; Kelvin Lim; Susumu Mori; Karl G Helmer; Jessica A Turner; Sarah Reading; Mark J Lowe; Elizabeth Aylward; Laura A Flashman; Greg Bonett; Jane S Paulsen Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2012
Authors: Esther L Yuh; Shelly R Cooper; Pratik Mukherjee; John K Yue; Hester F Lingsma; Wayne A Gordon; Alex B Valadka; David O Okonkwo; David M Schnyer; Mary J Vassar; Andrew I R Maas; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Vijay K Venkatraman; Christopher E Gonzalez; Bennett Landman; Joshua Goh; David A Reiter; Yang An; Susan M Resnick Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: S N Niogi; P Mukherjee; J Ghajar; C Johnson; R A Kolster; R Sarkar; H Lee; M Meeker; R D Zimmerman; G T Manley; B D McCandliss Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: John K Yue; Mary J Vassar; Hester F Lingsma; Shelly R Cooper; David O Okonkwo; Alex B Valadka; Wayne A Gordon; Andrew I R Maas; Pratik Mukherjee; Esther L Yuh; Ava M Puccio; David M Schnyer; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Jacobus F A Jansen; M Eline Kooi; Alfons G H Kessels; Klaas Nicolay; Walter H Backes Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Myung-Ho In; Ek Tsoon Tan; Joshua D Trzasko; Yunhong Shu; Daehun Kang; Uten Yarach; Shengzhen Tao; Erin M Gray; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Joshua R Biller; Jana G Delfino; Michael A Boss; Mark D Does; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Mark A Griswold; Jeffrey L Gunter; R Scott Hinks; Stuart W Hoffman; Geena Kim; Riccardo Lattanzi; Xiaojuan Li; Luca Marinelli; Gregory J Metzger; Pratik Mukherjee; Robert J Nordstrom; Adele P Peskin; Elena Perez; Stephen E Russek; Berkman Sahiner; Natalie Serkova; Amita Shukla-Dave; Michael Steckner; Karl F Stupic; Lisa J Wilmes; Holden H Wu; Huiming Zhang; Edward F Jackson; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ashley T Tao; Yunhong Shu; Ek T Tan; Joshua D Trzasko; Shengzhen Tao; Robert D Reid; Paul T Weavers; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ek T Tan; Christopher J Hardy; Yunhong Shu; Myung-Ho In; Arnaud Guidon; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein; Thomas K F Foo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiaopeng Zhou; Ken E Sakaie; Josef P Debbins; Sridar Narayanan; Robert J Fox; Mark J Lowe Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Yuxi Pang; Dariya I Malyarenko; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Enzo Barberi; Michael Cole; Axel Vom Endt; Johannes Peeters; Ek T Tan; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 3.119