J B M Warntjes1,2,3, A Persson4, J Berge5, W Zech4,5,6. 1. From the Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization (J.B.M.W., A.P., W.Z.) marcel.warntjes@cmiv.liu.se. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences (J.B.M.W.), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 3. SyntheticMR AB (J.B.M.W.), Linköping, Sweden. 4. From the Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization (J.B.M.W., A.P., W.Z.). 5. Institute of Forensic Medicine (J.B., W.Z.), Linköping, Sweden. 6. Institute of Forensic Medicine (W.Z.), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Myelin detection is of great value in monitoring diseases such as multiple sclerosis and dementia. However, most MR imaging methods to measure myelin are challenging for routine clinical use. Recently, a novel method was published, in which the presence of myelin is inferred by using its effect on the intra- and extracellular water relaxation rates and proton density, observable by rapid quantitative MR imaging. The purpose of this work was to validate this method further on the brains of 12 fresh, intact cadavers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 12 brains were scanned with a quantification sequence to determine the longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates and proton density as input for the myelin estimations. Subsequently, the brains were excised at postmortem examination, and brain slices were stained with Luxol fast blue to verify the presence of myelin. The optical density values of photographs of the stained brain slices were registered with the MR images and correlated with the myelin estimation performed by quantitative MR imaging. RESULTS: A correlation was found between the 2 methods with a mean Spearman ρ for all subjects of 0.74 ± 0.11. Linear regression showed a mean intercept of 1.50% ± 2.84% and a mean slope of 4.37% ± 1.73%/%. A lower correlation was found for the separate longitudinal relaxation rates and proton density (ρ = 0.63 ± 0.12 and -0.73 ± 0.09, respectively). For transverse relaxation rates, the ρ was very low (0.11 ± 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The observed correlation supports the validity of myelin measurement by using the MR imaging quantification method.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Myelin detection is of great value in monitoring diseases such as multiple sclerosis and dementia. However, most MR imaging methods to measure myelin are challenging for routine clinical use. Recently, a novel method was published, in which the presence of myelin is inferred by using its effect on the intra- and extracellular water relaxation rates and proton density, observable by rapid quantitative MR imaging. The purpose of this work was to validate this method further on the brains of 12 fresh, intact cadavers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 12 brains were scanned with a quantification sequence to determine the longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates and proton density as input for the myelin estimations. Subsequently, the brains were excised at postmortem examination, and brain slices were stained with Luxol fast blue to verify the presence of myelin. The optical density values of photographs of the stained brain slices were registered with the MR images and correlated with the myelin estimation performed by quantitative MR imaging. RESULTS: A correlation was found between the 2 methods with a mean Spearman ρ for all subjects of 0.74 ± 0.11. Linear regression showed a mean intercept of 1.50% ± 2.84% and a mean slope of 4.37% ± 1.73%/%. A lower correlation was found for the separate longitudinal relaxation rates and proton density (ρ = 0.63 ± 0.12 and -0.73 ± 0.09, respectively). For transverse relaxation rates, the ρ was very low (0.11 ± 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The observed correlation supports the validity of myelin measurement by using the MR imaging quantification method.
Authors: G R Moore; E Leung; A L MacKay; I M Vavasour; K P Whittall; K S Cover; D K Li; S A Hashimoto; J Oger; T J Sprinkle; D W Paty Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-11-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Rohit Bakshi; Alan J Thompson; Maria A Rocca; Daniel Pelletier; Vincent Dousset; Frederik Barkhof; Matilde Inglese; Charles R G Guttmann; Mark A Horsfield; Massimo Filippi Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: T Granberg; M Uppman; F Hashim; C Cananau; L E Nordin; S Shams; J Berglund; Y Forslin; P Aspelin; S Fredrikson; M Kristoffersen-Wiberg Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Hagiwara; M Hori; K Yokoyama; M Nakazawa; R Ueda; M Horita; C Andica; O Abe; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jason F Moody; Nakul Aggarwal; Douglas C Dean; Do P M Tromp; Steve R Kecskemeti; Jonathan A Oler; Ned H Kalin; Andrew L Alexander Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jennifer K Lee; Polan T Santos; May W Chen; Caitlin E O'Brien; Ewa Kulikowicz; Shawn Adams; Henry Hardart; Raymond C Koehler; Lee J Martin Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Yufan Zheng; Jessica Dudman; Jacqueline T Chen; Kedar R Mahajan; Danielle Herman; Robert J Fox; Daniel Ontaneda; Bruce D Trapp; Kunio Nakamura Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: A Erramuzpe; R Schurr; J D Yeatman; I H Gotlib; M D Sacchet; K E Travis; H M Feldman; A A Mezer Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 4.861