Jorge R C Almeida1, Tsafrir Greenberg2, Hanzhang Lu3, Henry W Chase2, Jay C Fournier2, Crystal M Cooper3, Thilo Deckersbach4, Phil Adams5, Thomas Carmody5, Maurizio Fava4, Benji Kurian3, Patrick J McGrath6, Melvin G McInnis7, Maria A Oquendo8, Ramin Parsey9, Myrna Weissman6, Madhukar Trivedi3, Mary L Phillips2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI 02906, USA; Departments of Psychiatry, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Electronic address: Jorge.Almeida@austin.utexas.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. 5. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3309, USA. 9. Departments of Psychiatry & Radiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous investigations of test-retest reliability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) at rest measured with pseudo-continuous Arterial Spin Labeling (pCASL) demonstrated good reliability, but are limited by the use of similar scanner platforms. In the present study we examined test-retest reliability of CBF in regions implicated in emotion and the default mode network. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We measured absolute and relative CBF at rest in thirty-one healthy subjects in two scan sessions, one week apart, at four different sites and three different scan platforms. We derived CBF from pCASL images with an automated algorithm and calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) across sessions for regions of interest. In addition, we investigated site effects. RESULTS: For both absolute and relative CBF measures, ICCs were good to excellent (i.e. >0.6) in most brain regions, with highest values observed for the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and ventral striatum. A leave-one-site-out cross validation analysis did not show a significant effect for site on whole brain CBF and there was no proportional bias across sites. However, a significant site effect was present in the repeated measures ANOVA. CONCLUSIONS: The high test-retest reliability of CBF measured with pCASL in a range of brain regions implicated in emotion and salience processing, emotion regulation, and the default mode network, which have been previously linked to depression symptomatology supports its use in studies that aim to identify neuroimaging biomarkers of treatment response.
INTRODUCTION: Previous investigations of test-retest reliability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) at rest measured with pseudo-continuous Arterial Spin Labeling (pCASL) demonstrated good reliability, but are limited by the use of similar scanner platforms. In the present study we examined test-retest reliability of CBF in regions implicated in emotion and the default mode network. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We measured absolute and relative CBF at rest in thirty-one healthy subjects in two scan sessions, one week apart, at four different sites and three different scan platforms. We derived CBF from pCASL images with an automated algorithm and calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) across sessions for regions of interest. In addition, we investigated site effects. RESULTS: For both absolute and relative CBF measures, ICCs were good to excellent (i.e. >0.6) in most brain regions, with highest values observed for the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and ventral striatum. A leave-one-site-out cross validation analysis did not show a significant effect for site on whole brain CBF and there was no proportional bias across sites. However, a significant site effect was present in the repeated measures ANOVA. CONCLUSIONS: The high test-retest reliability of CBF measured with pCASL in a range of brain regions implicated in emotion and salience processing, emotion regulation, and the default mode network, which have been previously linked to depression symptomatology supports its use in studies that aim to identify neuroimaging biomarkers of treatment response.
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; María Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Patricia Figueiredo; Gilbert Hangel; Vera C Keil; Ruben E Nechifor; Frank Riemer; Kathleen M Schmainda; Esther A H Warnert; Evita C Wiegers; Thomas C Booth Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Ruben C Gur; Ellyn R Butler; Tyler M Moore; Adon F G Rosen; Kosha Ruparel; Theodore D Satterthwaite; David R Roalf; Efstathios D Gennatas; Warren B Bilker; Russell T Shinohara; Allison Port; Mark A Elliott; Ragini Verma; Christos Davatzikos; Daniel H Wolf; John A Detre; Raquel E Gur Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Cristina Granziera; Jens Wuerfel; Frederik Barkhof; Massimiliano Calabrese; Nicola De Stefano; Christian Enzinger; Nikos Evangelou; Massimo Filippi; Jeroen J G Geurts; Daniel S Reich; Maria A Rocca; Stefan Ropele; Àlex Rovira; Pascal Sati; Ahmed T Toosy; Hugo Vrenken; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Ludwig Kappos Journal: Brain Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Katrina J Carter; Aaron T Ward; J Mikhail Kellawan; Marlowe W Eldridge; Awni Al-Subu; Benjamin J Walker; Jeffrey W Lee; Oliver Wieben; William G Schrage Journal: J Physiol Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 6.228
Authors: Lauren R Binnie; Mathilde M H Pauls; Philip Benjamin; Mohani-Preet K Dhillon; Shai Betteridge; Brian Clarke; Rita Ghatala; Fearghal A H Hainsworth; Franklyn A Howe; Usman Khan; Christina Kruuse; Jeremy B Madigan; Barry Moynihan; Bhavini Patel; Anthony C Pereira; Egill Rostrup; Anan B Y Shtaya; Catherine A Spilling; Sarah Trippier; Rebecca Williams; Jeremy D Isaacs; Thomas R Barrick; Atticus H Hainsworth Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 6.800
Authors: Crystal M Cooper; Cherise R Chin Fatt; Manish Jha; Gregory A Fonzo; Bruce D Grannemann; Thomas Carmody; Aasia Ali; Sina Aslan; Jorge R C Almeida; Thilo Deckersbach; Maurizio Fava; Benji T Kurian; Patrick J McGrath; Melvin McInnis; Ramin V Parsey; Myrna Weissman; Mary L Phillips; Hanzhang Lu; Amit Etkin; Madhukar H Trivedi Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-05-18
Authors: Geraldo Busatto Filho; Pedro G Rosa; Mauricio H Serpa; Paula Squarzoni; Fabio L Duran Journal: Braz J Psychiatry Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 2.697
Authors: James W Ibinson; Andrea G Gillman; Vince Schmidthorst; Conrad Li; Vitaly Napadow; Marco L Loggia; Ajay D Wasan Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2022-04-03 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Evita C Wiegers; Esther A H Warnert; Kathleen M Schmainda; Frank Riemer; Ruben E Nechifor; Vera C Keil; Gilbert Hangel; Patrícia Figueiredo; Maria Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Otto M Henriksen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Zhengjun Li; Marta Vidorreta; Natalie Katchmar; David C Alsop; Daniel H Wolf; John A Detre Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 6.556