Yoojin Lee1, Martina F Callaghan2, Julio Acosta-Cabronero2, Antoine Lutti3, Zoltan Nagy1. 1. Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom. 3. Laboratory for Research in Neuroimaging, Department of Clinical Neuroscience,, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parametric imaging methods (e.g., T1 relaxation time mapping) have been shown to be more reproducible across time and vendors than weighted (e.g., T1 -weighted) images. The purpose of this work was to more extensively evaluate the validity of this assertion. METHODS: Seven volunteers underwent twice-repeated acquisitions of variable flip-angle T1 mapping, including B1 + calibration, on a 3T Philips Achieva and 3T Siemens Trio scanner. Intra-scanner and inter-vendor T1 variability were calculated. To determine T1 reproducibility levels in longitudinal settings, or after changing hardware or software, four additional data sets were acquired from two of the participants; one participant was scanned on a different 3T Siemens Trio scanner and another on the same 3T Philips Achieva scanner but after a software upgrade. RESULTS: Intra-scanner variability of voxel-wise T1 values was consistent between the two vendors, averaging 0.7/0.7/1.3/1.4% in white matter/cortical gray matter/subcortical gray matter/cerebellum, respectively. We observed, however, a systematic bias between the two vendors of https://doi.org/10.0/7.8/8.6/10.0%, respectively. The T1 bias across two scanners of the same model was greater than intra-scanner variability, although still only at 1.4/1.0/1.9/2.3%, respectively. A greater bias was identified for data sets acquired before/after software upgrade in white matter/cortical gray matter (3.6/2.7%) whereas variability in subcortical gray matter/cerebellum was comparable (1.7/1.9%). CONCLUSION: We established intra- and inter-vendor reproducibility levels for a widely used T1 mapping protocol. We anticipate that these results will guide the design of multi-center studies, particularly those encompassing multiple vendors. Furthermore, this baseline level of reproducibility should be established or surpassed during the piloting phase of such studies.
PURPOSE: Parametric imaging methods (e.g., T1 relaxation time mapping) have been shown to be more reproducible across time and vendors than weighted (e.g., T1 -weighted) images. The purpose of this work was to more extensively evaluate the validity of this assertion. METHODS: Seven volunteers underwent twice-repeated acquisitions of variable flip-angle T1 mapping, including B1 + calibration, on a 3T Philips Achieva and 3T Siemens Trio scanner. Intra-scanner and inter-vendor T1 variability were calculated. To determine T1 reproducibility levels in longitudinal settings, or after changing hardware or software, four additional data sets were acquired from two of the participants; one participant was scanned on a different 3T Siemens Trio scanner and another on the same 3T Philips Achieva scanner but after a software upgrade. RESULTS: Intra-scanner variability of voxel-wise T1 values was consistent between the two vendors, averaging 0.7/0.7/1.3/1.4% in white matter/cortical gray matter/subcortical gray matter/cerebellum, respectively. We observed, however, a systematic bias between the two vendors of https://doi.org/10.0/7.8/8.6/10.0%, respectively. The T1 bias across two scanners of the same model was greater than intra-scanner variability, although still only at 1.4/1.0/1.9/2.3%, respectively. A greater bias was identified for data sets acquired before/after software upgrade in white matter/cortical gray matter (3.6/2.7%) whereas variability in subcortical gray matter/cerebellum was comparable (1.7/1.9%). CONCLUSION: We established intra- and inter-vendor reproducibility levels for a widely used T1 mapping protocol. We anticipate that these results will guide the design of multi-center studies, particularly those encompassing multiple vendors. Furthermore, this baseline level of reproducibility should be established or surpassed during the piloting phase of such studies.
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Elisabeth Wenger; Sarah E Polk; Maike M Kleemeyer; Nikolaus Weiskopf; Nils C Bodammer; Ulman Lindenberger; Andreas M Brandmaier Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 5.399
Authors: Rui Pedro A G Teixeira; Radhouene Neji; Tobias C Wood; Ana A Baburamani; Shaihan J Malik; Joseph V Hajnal Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Zydrunas Gimbutas; Andrew Dienstfrey; Karl F Stupic; Michael A Boss; Stephen E Russek; Thomas L Chenevert; P V Prasad; Junyu Guo; Wilburn E Reddick; Kim M Cecil; Amita Shukla-Dave; David Aramburu Nunez; Amaresh Shridhar Konar; Michael Z Liu; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Jie Zheng; Peng Hu; Edward F Jackson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ilona A Dekkers; Anneloes de Boer; Kaniska Sharma; Eleanor F Cox; Hildo J Lamb; David L Buckley; Octavia Bane; David M Morris; Pottumarthi V Prasad; Scott I K Semple; Keith A Gillis; Paul Hockings; Charlotte Buchanan; Marcos Wolf; Christoffer Laustsen; Tim Leiner; Bryan Haddock; Johannes M Hoogduin; Pim Pullens; Steven Sourbron; Susan Francis Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 2.310