| Literature DB >> 28057964 |
Sergio Murilo Georgeto1, Carlos Alexandre Martins Zicarelli1, Munir Antônio Gariba2, Luiz Roberto Aguiar2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare brain structures using volumetric magnetic resonance imaging with isotropic resolution, in T1-weighted gradient-echo (GRE) acquisition, with and without inversion recovery (IR).Entities:
Keywords: Brain/anatomy & histology; Magnetic resonance imaging; Reproducibility of results
Year: 2016 PMID: 28057964 PMCID: PMC5210034 DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Bras ISSN: 0100-3984
Figure 1Sagittal images of the lateral fissure at its deepest extent, obtained with the T1 GRE (A) and T1 IR GRE (B) techniques.
Anatomical landmarks to be identified on the lateral surface of the brain.
| Anatomical structures | Easily identifiable | Inconclusive | Unidentifiable |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The lateral convexity (sagittal view) in the segment where the deepest extent of the lateral fissure can be seen | |||
| 2. Lateral fissure | |||
| 2.1. Posterior horizontal ramus | |||
| 2.2. Anterior horizontal ramus | |||
| 2.3. Anterior ascending ramus | |||
| 2.4. Posterior ascending ramus | |||
| 2.5. Posterior descending ramus | |||
| 2.6. Anterior subcentral sulcus | |||
| 2.7. Posterior subcentral sulcus | |||
| 2.8. Transverse temporal sulcus | |||
| 2.9. Anterior sylvian point | |||
| 3. Inferior frontal gyrus | |||
| 3.1. Orbital part | |||
| 3.2. Triangular part | |||
| 3.3. Opercular part | |||
| 4. Inferior frontal gyrus | |||
| 5. Connection between the middle frontal and precentral gyrus | |||
| 6. Precentral sulcus | |||
| 7. Precentral gyrus | |||
| 8. Central sulcus | |||
| 9. Postcentral gyrus | |||
| 10. Postcentral sulcus | |||
| 11. Posterior ascending ramus of the lateral fissure/supramarginal gyrus | |||
| 12. Superior temporal sulcus | |||
| 13. Angular gyrus | |||
| 14. Intraparietal sulcus | |||
| 15. Superior parietal lobe |
Source: Modified from Naidich et al.(.
Absolute and relative frequencies of images in which the target structures were identified (easily identifiable) or unidentified (unidentifiable + inconclusive) with the T1 GRE and T1 IR GRE techniques, in six different scenarios.
| T1GRE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario | T1 IR GRE | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | Identifiable | Total | |
| 1) All observations ( | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | 582 | 90 | 673 | |
| % | 7.8% | 1.2% | 9.0% | ||
| Identifiable | 256 | 6,571 | 6,827 | ||
| % | 3.4% | 87.6% | 91.0% | ||
| Total | 838 | 6,662 | 7,500 | ||
| % | 11.2% | 88.8% | 100.0% | ||
| 2) Intraobserver analysis (n = 9,000) | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | 374 | 53 | 427 | |
| % | 8.3% | 1.2% | 9.5% | ||
| Identifiable | 176 | 3,897 | 4,073 | ||
| % | 3.9% | 86.6% | 90.5% | ||
| Total | 550 | 3,950 | 4,500 | ||
| % | 12.2% | 87.8% | 100.0% | ||
| 3) Interobserver analysis ( | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | 341 | 51 | 392 | |
| % | 7.6% | 1.1% | 8.7% | ||
| Identifiable | n | 145 | 3,963 | 4,108 | |
| % | 3.2% | 88.1% | 91.3% | ||
| Total | n | 486 | 4,014 | 4,500 | |
| % | 10.8% | 89.2% | 100.0% | ||
| 4) First evaluation of observer 1 ( | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | 133 | 13 | 146 | |
| % | 8.9% | 0.9% | 9.7% | ||
| Identifiable | 65 | 1,289 | 1,354 | ||
| % | 4.3% | 85.9% | 90.3% | ||
| Total | 198 | 1,302 | 1,500 | ||
| % | 13.2% | 86.8% | 100.0% | ||
| 5) Evaluation of observer 2 ( | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | 103 | 23 | 126 | |
| % | 6.9% | 1.5% | 8.4% | ||
| Identifiable | 48 | 1,326 | 1,374 | ||
| % | 3.2% | 88.4% | 91.6% | ||
| Total | 151 | 1,349 | 1,500 | ||
| % | 10.1% | 89.9% | 100.0% | ||
| 6) Evaluation of observer 3 ( | Unidentifiable + inconclusive | 105 | 15 | 120 | |
| % | 7.0% | 1.0% | 8.0% | ||
| Identifiable | 32 | 1,348 | 1,380 | ||
| % | 2.1% | 89.9% | 92.0% | ||
| Total | 137 | 1,363 | 1,500 | ||
| % | 9.1% | 90.9% | 100.0% | ||
n, absolute frequency; %, relative frequency. Scenario 1 (McNemar: χ2 = 77.51; p-value = 0.000); Scenario 2 (McNemar: χ2 = 64.97; p-value = 0.000); Scenario 3 (McNemar: χ2 = 44.12; p-value = 0.000); Scenario 4 (McNemar: χ2 = 33.35; p-value = 0.000); Scenario 5 (McNemar: χ2 = 8.11; p-value = 0.003); Scenario 6 (McNemar: χ2 = 5.48; p-value = 0.020).