Vasily L Yarnykh1,2, Alena A Kisel2, Marina Y Khodanovich2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Research Institute of Biology and Biophysics, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-point macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) mapping is a recent quantitative MRI method for fast assessment of brain myelination. Information about reproducibility and sensitivity of MPF mapping to magnetic field nonuniformity is important for clinical applications. PURPOSE: To assess scan-rescan repeatability and a value of B0 and B1 field inhomogeneity corrections in single-point synthetic-reference MPF mapping. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Eight healthy adult volunteers underwent two scans with 11.5 ± 2.3 months interval. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T; whole-brain 3D MPF mapping protocol included three spoiled gradient-echo sequences providing T1 , proton density, and magnetization transfer contrasts with 1.25 × 1.25 × 1.25 mm3 resolution and B0 and B1 mapping sequences. ASSESSMENT: MPF maps were reconstructed with B0 and B1 field nonuniformity correction, B0 - and B1 -only corrections, and without corrections. Mean MPF values were measured in automatically segmented white matter (WM) and gray matter (GM). STATISTICAL TESTS: Within-subject coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests to assess scan-rescan repeatability. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare field corrections. RESULTS: Maximal relative local MPF errors without correction in the areas of largest field nonuniformities were about 5% and 27% for B0 and B1 , respectively. The effect of B0 correction was insignificant for whole-brain WM (P > 0.25) and GM (P > 0.98) MPF. The absence of B1 correction caused a positive relative bias of 4-5% (P < 0.001) in both tissues. Scan-rescan agreement was similar for all field correction options with ICCs 0.80-0.81 for WM and 0.89-0.92 for GM. CVs were 1.6-1.7% for WM and 0.7-1.0% for GM. DATA CONCLUSION: The single-point method enables high repeatability of MPF maps obtained with the same equipment. Correction of B0 inhomogeneity may be disregarded to shorten the examination time. B1 nonuniformity correction improves accuracy of MPF measurements at 3T. Reliability of whole-brain MPF measurements in WM and GM is not affected by B0 and B1 field corrections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1789-1798.
BACKGROUND: Single-point macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) mapping is a recent quantitative MRI method for fast assessment of brain myelination. Information about reproducibility and sensitivity of MPF mapping to magnetic field nonuniformity is important for clinical applications. PURPOSE: To assess scan-rescan repeatability and a value of B0 and B1 field inhomogeneity corrections in single-point synthetic-reference MPF mapping. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Eight healthy adult volunteers underwent two scans with 11.5 ± 2.3 months interval. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T; whole-brain 3D MPF mapping protocol included three spoiled gradient-echo sequences providing T1 , proton density, and magnetization transfer contrasts with 1.25 × 1.25 × 1.25 mm3 resolution and B0 and B1 mapping sequences. ASSESSMENT: MPF maps were reconstructed with B0 and B1 field nonuniformity correction, B0 - and B1 -only corrections, and without corrections. Mean MPF values were measured in automatically segmented white matter (WM) and gray matter (GM). STATISTICAL TESTS: Within-subject coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests to assess scan-rescan repeatability. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare field corrections. RESULTS: Maximal relative local MPF errors without correction in the areas of largest field nonuniformities were about 5% and 27% for B0 and B1 , respectively. The effect of B0 correction was insignificant for whole-brain WM (P > 0.25) and GM (P > 0.98) MPF. The absence of B1 correction caused a positive relative bias of 4-5% (P < 0.001) in both tissues. Scan-rescan agreement was similar for all field correction options with ICCs 0.80-0.81 for WM and 0.89-0.92 for GM. CVs were 1.6-1.7% for WM and 0.7-1.0% for GM. DATA CONCLUSION: The single-point method enables high repeatability of MPF maps obtained with the same equipment. Correction of B0 inhomogeneity may be disregarded to shorten the examination time. B1 nonuniformity correction improves accuracy of MPF measurements at 3T. Reliability of whole-brain MPF measurements in WM and GM is not affected by B0 and B1 field corrections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1789-1798.
Authors: V L Yarnykh; E P Krutenkova; G Aitmagambetova; P Repovic; A Mayadev; P Qian; L K Jung Henson; B Gangadharan; J D Bowen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Daniel L Schwartz; Ian Tagge; Katherine Powers; Sinyeob Ahn; Rohit Bakshi; Peter A Calabresi; R Todd Constable; John Grinstead; Roland G Henry; Govind Nair; Nico Papinutto; Daniel Pelletier; Russell Shinohara; Jiwon Oh; Daniel S Reich; Nancy L Sicotte; William D Rooney Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eric C Petrie; Donna J Cross; Vasily L Yarnykh; Todd Richards; Nathalie M Martin; Kathleen Pagulayan; David Hoff; Kim Hart; Cynthia Mayer; Matthew Tarabochia; Murray A Raskind; Satoshi Minoshima; Elaine R Peskind Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Neva M Corrigan; Vasily L Yarnykh; Daniel S Hippe; Julia P Owen; Elizabeth Huber; T Christina Zhao; Patricia K Kuhl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Graham Cooper; Sebastian Hirsch; Michael Scheel; Alexander U Brandt; Friedemann Paul; Carsten Finke; Philipp Boehm-Sturm; Stefan Hetzer Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Liudmila P Smirnova; Vasily L Yarnykh; Daria A Parshukova; Elena G Kornetova; Arkadiy V Semke; Anna V Usova; Anna O Pishchelko; Marina Y Khodanovich; Svetlana A Ivanova Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Marina Yu Khodanovich; Ilya L Gubskiy; Marina S Kudabaeva; Darya D Namestnikova; Alena A Kisel; Tatyana V Anan'ina; Yana A Tumentceva; Lilia R Mustafina; Vasily L Yarnykh Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 6.960