The relation between local and distal muscle fat infiltration in chronic whiplash using magnetic resonance imaging.

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between fat infiltration in the cervical multifidi and fat infiltration measured in the lower extremities to move further into understanding the complex signs and symptoms arising from a whiplash trauma. Thirty-one individuals with chronic whiplash associated disorders, stratified into a mild/moderate group and a severe group, together with 31 age- and gender matched controls were enrolled in this study. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to acquire a 3D volume of the neck and of the whole-body. Cervical multifidi was used to represent muscles local to the whiplash trauma and all muscles below the hip joint, the lower extremities, were representing widespread muscles distal to the site of the trauma. The fat infiltration was determined by fat fraction in the segmented images. There was a linear correlation between local and distal muscle fat infiltration (p<0.001, r2 = 0.28). The correlation remained significant when adjusting for age and WAD group (p = 0.009) as well as when correcting for age, WAD group and BMI (p = 0.002). There was a correlation between local and distal muscle fat infiltration within the severe WAD group (p = 0.0016, r2 = 0.69) and in the healthy group (p = 0.022, r2 = 0.17) but not in the mild/moderate group (p = 0.29, r2 = 0.06). No significant differences (p = 0.11) in the lower extremities' MFI between the different groups were found. The absence of differences between the groups in terms of lower extremities' muscle fat infiltration indicates that, in this particular population, the whiplash trauma has a local effect on muscle fat infiltration rather than a generalized.

Introduction

Approximately 50% of individuals involved in a motor vehicle collision should expect to demonstrate signs of recovery within the first 6–12 weeks following the collision event [1]. Others will transition from acute to chronic trauma-related disability, presenting with physical and psychological symptoms including neck pain, radiating arm pain, headache, anxiety and depression [1-3]. However, there exists no standard by which to objectively diagnose whiplash associated disorders (WAD), rather the grading is reliant on physical examination findings [4] and a history of a whiplash from a motor vehicle collision.

Recently, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies across three different countries (and insurance schemas) have qualified and quantified larger magnitudes of muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in the cervical multifidi of participants with persistent WAD compared to those reporting lower levels of pain-related disability, those nominating full recovery, idiopathic neck pain, and healthy controls [5-7]. The cervical multifidi may be directly involved during the whiplash trauma as the muscles are inserted directly to the facet capsules of the cervical vertebrae [8]. A neck injury due to the whiplash trauma may explain the higher amount of MFI in multifidi of patients with chronic whiplash [9], although, the mechanism behind MFI reported in cervical multifidi [5-7] is unclear. A number of hypotheses around injury severity, pain intensity and/or related disability [10, 11], heightened stress-responses [12-14] central/peripheral neuronal interference [15-17], spinal cord injury [18] and/or physical inactivity [19, 20] may be offered to explain the rapid expression and larger magnitude of MFI in patients with more severe self-reported symptoms. Factors such as heightened stress response and physical inactivity are suggested to have general impact on muscle fat infiltration [21], but local injuries would only have an impact on the neck.

Furthermore, a previous review of WAD [21] highlighted the potential influence of and main actions exerted by the sympathetic nervous system on widespread motor function with a focus on the underlying mechanisms for the onset and maintenance of chronic pain. While much of the subsequent research has provided breakthrough knowledge about WAD related pain-processing deficits and psychological distress, the landscape of available literature focusing on the muscle system and motor output following whiplash continues to expand, but not yet in parallel. Albeit preliminary, a case-study reported MFI in both the neck region and the lower extremities [15] that could point to a mechanical injury involving descending white matter pathways of the cervical spinal cord. A higher value of MFI detected in both the lower extremity and neck musculature corresponded to altered spinal cord anatomy and reductions in the ability to maximally activate plantar flexor torques [15]. The preliminary nature of the case-based study [15] supports the need for a larger cohort to further investigate the potential link between MFI in muscles directly associated with the trauma likely affecting the head and neck and in muscles distal to the site of potential injury.

Contrary to the findings by the case study above, a study by Pedler et al, on a larger cohort, found no differences in fat infiltration in the right soleus muscle on group level where the groups were divided into moderate/severe WAD, mild WAD and healthy controls [9]. These contrasting findings calls for further investigations of local and distal MFI in WAD patients. The study by Pedler et al. only investigated one muscle in the lower extremities. In addition, no regression models were used to compare the associations between the local and distal fat compartments.

The aim of this study was to investigate the potential pathophysiological link between local MFI (that may have been injured in the trauma) and generalized MFI distal to the whiplash trauma in patients with severe WAD, in those with mild/moderate WAD, and in healthy controls.

Method

Participants

Thirty-one individuals with mild/moderate (N = 20) or severe (N = 11) chronic WAD (at least 6 months duration) and 31 healthy matched controls were included. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was used for stratification (mild/moderate: 20% < NDI < 40% and severe: NDI ≥ 40%)[22]. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics.

Table 1

Descriptive data in format: [mean] ± [standard deviation] ([Range]).

	Healthy Controls	WAD
	Total	Total	NDI<40%	NDI≥40%
Participants, n	31	31	20	11
Age, y	41.5 ± 0.6 (22–61)	41.5 ± 0.9 (20–62)	39.2 ± 11.5 (20–62)	45.7 ± 8.5 (34–58)
Body mass index, kg/m2	24.4 ± 3.2 (19.7–34.5)	25.6 ± 4.1 (19.1–33.8)	25.5 ± 4.1 (19.1–33.8)	25.8 ± 3.4 (20.3–32.3)
NDI, %	N/A	35.8 ± 14.1 (10–68)	27.3 ± 6.8 (10–38)	51.3 ± 10.2 (40–68)
Time since injury, mo	N/A	18.1 ± 9.2 (6–36)	20.1 ± 9.8 (7–36)	14.5 ± 7.2 (6–32)

WAD: Whiplash Associated Disorders, NDI: Neck Disability IndexBMI: Body Mass Index kg/m2

All participants provided written informed consent prior participation in the study and the study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Linköping (DNR 2011/262-32). All experiments were performed with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The WAD cohort was included from an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing three different exercise strategies; neck specific exercises, neck specific exercises in combination with a behavioral approach, or prescribed general physical activity [23, 24]. All participants in this study underwent the MR-scan before entering the RCT. The inclusion criteria for entering the RCT were: Age 18–62 years old, right handed with dominant right-sided pain, WAD > 6 months and < 3 years, Quebec Task Force WAD of grade II or III (grade II means neck complaints and musculoskeletal signs; grade III means grade II plus neurological signs [4]) and pain intensity of greater than 20 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [25] and/or a score greater than 20% on the NDI scale).

Exclusion criteria from the WAD cohort were known or suspected serious physical pathology, earlier fracture or luxation of the cervical column, neck trauma with persistent symptoms from previous injury, surgery on the cervical column; neck pain that caused absence from work >1 month in the year prior to the WAD trauma, signs of traumatic brain injury from or before the whiplash injury, generalized or more dominant pain elsewhere in the body, diseases or other injuries that might prevent full participation in the study, diagnosis of a severe psychiatric disorder, known drug abuse, contradiction for MRI, or insufficient knowledge of the Swedish language to answer the questionnaires.

The age- and sex-matched healthy cohort was included for comparative purposes to the WAD cohort. The exclusion criteria were present or past neck pain, dysfunction, or related disability, history of neck trauma, or lower back pain, rheumatologic or neurological disease, generalized myalgia and institutional contraindications for undergoing an MRI exam.

Magnetic resonance imaging

All images were acquired with a Philips Ingenia 3.0T scanner (Royal Philips, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). The coils used for imaging was the built-in phased array posterior coil, a 32-channel head coil and two anterior flexible coils.

The neck images were acquired using a 2-point Dixon 3D gradient-echo sequence with out-of-phase echo time of 3.66 milliseconds, and in-phase echo time of 7.24 milliseconds. TR was 10 milliseconds; the flip angle was 10° and the acquisition time was 9 minutes. Later echoes enabled the acquisition of a high resolution of 0.75*0.75*0.75 mm3. A high resolution is needed to distinguish the small muscles in the deep neck musculature. Literature values of T2* relaxation (23.9 milliseconds for water and fat) was used for T2* correction (23,24). One participant was excluded due to a fat-water swap artifact.

The lower extremities were imaged using a 2-point Dixon 3D gradient-echo sequence with out of phase echo time of 1.15 milliseconds, and in-phase echo time of 2.3 milliseconds. TR was 3.78 milliseconds and the flip angle was 10°. The acquisition time was 5 minutes and the voxel size was 1.75*1.75*1.75 mm3. Water- and fat-separated images were acquired using a phase-based reconstruction method [26]. In the lower extremities, an intensity inhomogeneity correction was performed using fat signal referencing [27]. The fat-referenced imaging technique has only been validated for short echo-times and was therefore not applied to the neck images. As for the neck images, literature values for T2* correction were applied (23, 24).

Measurement of muscle fat infiltration

Left and right multifidi were segmented in the 3D volume from the level of cervical vertebra 3–7 using the semi-automatic image foresting transform technique [28]. Shortly described, the technique uses an algorithm that calculates a segmentation based on a few manually defined foreground seeds (pixels within the region of interest) and background seeds (outside the region of interest). This process is iterated by adding foreground and background seeds to help the algorithm until the operator is satisfied. The segmentation was done on the water image, and large fatty streaks adjacent to the muscle were excluded. The segmentation was performed by a musculoskeletal physiotherapist with more than 6 months experience doing this particular analysis. Fourteen randomly selected participants were segmented twice for investigating intra-rater reliability. The intra class correlation was 0.90 (CI 0.76–0.99) using two-way random-effects, single-measure intra-class correlation coefficient with absolute agreement. A physiotherapist researcher with more than 10 years of medical imaging experience also confirmed the segmentations. The MFI within the neck was acquired by calculating the fat signal fraction: .

The lower extremities were automatically segmented using a multi-atlas segmentation technique presented by Karlsson et al. [29]. The method can handle different field strengths (1.5 T and 3.0 T) and image resolutions [29, 30] and has also been validated using test-retest with lean, overweight and obese participants [31]. All muscles below the hip joint were included. Fifteen atlases with annotated muscles were non-rigidly registered onto the subject followed by majority voting, i.e. more than half of the atlases needed to agree to classify the tissue as muscle. MFI was defined as the average fat in muscle tissue where the fat concentration was less than 50%. This way, contributions of fat signal from large fatty streaks and potential leakage in subcutaneous adipose tissue were avoided. The range of limits of agreement for the precision of this MFI measure is <±2% for leg muscles [30].

Statistics

The Shapiro-Wilk’s test together with visual inspection of histograms were used for investigating if MFI in the neck and lower extremities were approximately normally distributed. Although the Schapiro-Wilk’s test could not exclude non-normal distribution, the visual inspection of the histograms and box plots showed that MFI in multifidi and the lower extremities respectively still could be considered as normally distributed.

The analysis was performed using a mixed linear model with (A)—the association between MFI in multifidi with MFI in the lower extremities, (B)–model A with WAD-group and age as fixed factors, and (C)–model B with BMI as an additional factor. A linear regression between multifidi and duration since injury was also made on the two WAD groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate if there are any differences in MFI in the lower extremities between severe WAD, mild/moderate WAD and healthy controls. A Bonferroni correction of multiple comparisons was chosen as post-hoc test to investigate potential between-group differences. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A typical result for the semi-automatic segmentation of the neck is showed in Fig 1 and Fig 2 shows a typical example of the fully automatic segmentation of the lower extremities.

Fig 1

Segmentation of m. multifidi.

An axial (left), a coronal (middle), and a sagittal (right) cut of a high-resolution (0.75*0.75*0.75 mm3) 3D image volume acquired using 2-point Dixon imaging followed by water-fat separation highlighting the segmentation of the left cervical multifidii in one of the healthy controls. The segmented mask is overlaid on the fat + water image volume.

Fig 2

Segmentation of lower extremities.

A coronal slice of the selected distal muscles (lower extremities) that was included in this study. The distal muscles were automatically defined using multi-atlas segmentation and is overlaid the water-fat images in a different color.

There was a significant linear association (p<0.001) between MFI in multifidus and MFI in the lower extremities (Model A) with r2 = 0.28. This relation remained significant when the model was adjusted for age, and WAD-group (Model B, p = 0.009) as well as when adjusted for age, WAD-group and BMI (Model C, p = 0.002). The severe WAD group had a significant (p = 0.0016) and high correlation (r2 = 0.69) between MFI in multifidi and MFI in the lower extremities. The healthy controls also showed a significant (p = 0.022) correlation (r2 = 0.17). However, mild/moderate WAD showed no significant (p = 0.29) correlation between MFI in multifidus and MFI in the lower extremities (r2 = 0.06). Fig 3 shows the MFI in multifidi plotted against the MFI in the lower extremities color coded for the different groups. Observe that caution should be made for comparing the r2 from the different subgroups due to different within-group variances. WAD group was a significant factor both in model B (p = 0.017) and in model C (p = 0.024) when comparing multifidus MFI to MFI in the lower extremities. Severe WAD had significantly higher slope than both mild/moderate WAD(model B, p = 0.005, model C, p = 0.01) and healthy controls (model B, p = 0.016, and model C, p = 0.015). Also, age was a significant factor both in model B (p = 0.009) and in model C (p = 0.008). BMI did not show as a significant factor in model C (p = 0.065). There was no significant (p = 0.9) association between MFI in multifidi and duration since injury.

Fig 3

Association between MFI in multifidi and lower extremities.

The MFI of the m. multifidi plotted against MFI in the lower extremities using different colors and shapes for the different WAD groups. The MFI is reported as the fraction of fat in the muscle (%). Regression lines are fitted to the data: Total (Black, dot dashed), y = -2.6 + 1.8x, r2 = 0.28, p < 0.001; Healthy Controls (Red, solid), y = -0.35 + 1.3x, r2 = 0.17, p = 0.022; Mild/Moderate WAD (green, short dashed), y = 1.0 + 0.77x, r2 = 0.29, p = 0.29; Severe WAD (blue, long dashed), y = -5.0+2.7x, r2 = 0.69, p = 0.0016.

The mean MFI in the lower extremities was 5.04% for the healthy controls, 5.06% for the mild/moderate WAD and 6.25% for the severe WAD. The ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences (p = 0.11) in the lower extremities’ MFI between the different groups. Fig 4 shows the mean MFI in the lower extremities for the three different groups.

Fig 4

Mean MFI in the three different groups.

The figure shows the MFI based on the volumetric analysis of the lower extremities. The top of the bars represents the mean MFI value (in %) and the whiskers show the 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

There was a significant linear association between the MFI in the multifidi muscles and in the lower extremities with r2 = 0.28 (model A). This association remained significant when adding age and WAD group (model B) as well as BMI (model C) as potential confounding factors, suggesting that self-reported disability after WAD injury and MFI distal to the whiplash trauma might be linked. This potential link is further implied when looking at the correlations of each group. Severe WAD shows a strong correlation between multifidi MFI and MFI in the lower extremities, with a r2 = 0.69. Furthermore, mild/moderate WAD shows no significant correlation between local and distal MFI.

The duration since injury is not correlated to the MFI in multifidi. Patients with severe WAD had significantly higher MFI in multifidi both in model B and model C, implying that self-reported disability and MFI are connected although the time since injury does not affect the result. One hypothesis is that a higher fat infiltration (or degenerative pathologies) prior the trauma might affect the recovery of the patient groups [32]. While it is largely unknown if and how changes in MFI is associated with poor functional recovery from whiplash, the results of this study support that higher amounts of MFI could contribute to predictive models towards determining whiplash recovery or other common conditions. A previous study investigating fibromyalgia, found significantly higher MFI values in the quadriceps muscles compared to healthy controls [33]. However, note that widespread pain was an exclusion criterion in this study.

The difference in MFI in the lower extremities was not statistically significant between the groups according to the ANOVA. This is similar to the findings by Pedler et al where there were no significant differences between MFI in multifidi and the right soleus muscle [9]. These findings indicate complex mechanistic pathways influence MFI development and that physical inactivity may not play a significant role in the recovery after a whiplash trauma since generalized MFI was not significantly different between the groups. Nevertheless, the potential that higher MFI prior the collision or larger expressions following the collision may influence a systemic response needs to be studied in a larger inception cohort in longitudinal fashion. However, to draw such conclusions, prognostic studies are needed. Our findings do indicate that the whiplash trauma might have a direct or indirect effect on the muscles close to the cervical spine may be at play but not as featured to occur in distal muscles. Further mechanistic work involving a larger sample of participants with varying levels of signs and symptoms and across different muscles is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

A case-study also reported high MFI in both the neck region and the lower extremities compared to one recovered participant [15], supporting the heterogeneity of the whiplash injury and recovery thereof. There are some differences between the designs comparing that study from this. The inclusion criteria for the studies are not in alignment. Also, the case study [15] involved participants with a more complex chronic WAD and one recovered participant. While the severity of injury is largely unknown, future quantitative work investigating spinal cord pathways and heightened molecular–neuroimmune—responses across a number of patient populations is warranted, available [34-38] and underway to fully understand the mechanisms underlying the cause and progression of compositional whole-body muscle changes in WAD, and other conditions. In the present study there were no clinical or radiological signs of a known spinal cord injury (e.g. jumped facet joints), however minor insults involving the spinal cord cannot be excluded.

While the possibilities to measure MFI in the small muscles in the neck with high-resolution MRI continues to evolve, the wider literature would benefit from a clear and broadly accepted definition of MFI. Suggestions on those definitions are, for example, proposed in the study by Crawford et al. [39] and the study by Elliott et al. [40]. The measures should be reproducible and insensitive to different scanners, different laboratories, and performed using consensus driven methodologies. In addition, future research should investigate MFI across a number of common conditions to compare and contrast diagnosis-dependent changes in local and whole-body MFI. The prospects of training and using deep learning neural networks also increases the feasibility of translating such measures to clinical practice [41].

The Shapiro-Wilks test indicated that the distribution was slightly non-normal. A non-parametric analysis was therefore performed and confirmed the results from the parametric test. For future studies, larger sample sizes could permit the development of larger, more complex, models without losing statistical power. However, this study establishes a potentially new link with MRI whole-body acquisition, which is not a normal clinical routine for patients with suspected spine trauma following motor vehicle collision. These links between local and distal MFI are intriguing and are opening up for further studies of the distal MFI’s influence to high self-reported disability in chronic WAD. With the evolved MRI technique, a head-to-knee protocol with enough resolution to automatically analyze the composition of the thigh muscles is possible using a six minute scan [42].

One limitation with this study was that no functional analysis was made on the lower extremities. Furthermore, no exclusion was made for previous trauma or injury in the lower extremities. However, an exclusion criterion for this study was dominating or generalized pain (other than for the neck region for WAD participants) minimizing the potential influences of previous trauma/injury.

Another limitation with this study was that the methods for measuring MFI in multifidi and lower extremities differs slightly. In the lower extremities, lower resolution is sufficient, which enables a shorter MR scan. Furthermore, the muscles can be analyzed with automatic methods with high reported precision [29, 30]. With evolving MRI technology better possibilities for scanning the smallest muscles (e.g. cervical multifidi) with enough resolution for segmentation and analysis have been possible [41]. In this manuscript the whole multifidi muscle volume has been analyzed instead of a few cross-sectional slices, which has been considered the previous gold standard. When the entire muscle is analyzed the result is not sensitive to the placement of single image slices. This increased precision makes it easier to perform longitudinal studies investigating e.g. different rehabilitation programs or to follow the progression of the WAD condition. However, one limitation with our approach is that a single peak lipid model with a theoretical value for T2* was used. This could induce a T2* bias in the investigation. Another limitation is that no calibration of the fat signal was applied to the high-resolution neck images. This may have introduced T1-bias in calculating the fat content of the m. multifidi. Future works including technical development of quantitative MFI measurement in the small deep neck muscles are of high interest to further investigate the local changes in MFI after, not only a whiplash injury, but other common, yet equally enigmatic, degenerative and pathological conditions of the spine (e.g. myelopathy and radiculopathy).

To conclude, since there was no significant difference in MFI distal to the trauma in the severe WAD group compared to either the mild/moderate WAD group, or to the healthy group, the results indicate the response to the whiplash trauma reflects a local physiological process in patients with severe chronic WAD. Furthermore, time since injury did not have a significant correlation with MFI in the multifidi, which indicate that slow development of generalized MFI due to e.g. physical inactivity after the trauma appears to have no major effect. Finally, the strong association between multifidi MFI and MFI in the lower extremities found to be unique to the group with severe WAD (r2 = 0.69) but not in the mild/minor WAD group (r2 = 0.06) does not exclude the possibility that high generalized MFI prior the accident could play a role in the development of severe chronic WAD. The associations between MFI and WAD are intriguing and may in the future contribute to better understanding regarding onset and progress of WAD after a whiplash trauma.

Complete measurement results for all participants included in this study.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jul 2019

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-19642

The relation between local and distal muscle fat infiltration in chronic whiplash using magnetic resonance imaging

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Karlsson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xi Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TR, MB, and ODL receive salaries and are stockholders of Advanced MR Analytics AB. AK is a stockholder of Advanced MR Analytics AB. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE's policies on sharing data and material."

We note that one or more of the authors received salaries from a commercial company: Advanced MR Analytics AB

Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their work in addressing my comments and believe the paper is now much more focused and streamlined. I have a few additional comments and suggestions primarily related to the discussion of the data and conclusions drawn.

1. Introduction: I am still struggling with the connection between this data and the idea of “complementing the neck images with whole body coverage” for diagnostic purposes. First, you are unable to determine whether the stronger correlation between multifidi and lower extremity MFI in the severe WAD group pre-exists and predicts a worse outcome or is a progressive response to injury. The data that you discuss more strongly support the latter, in which case diagnostic whole body scans would not be useful. Second, to argue for whole body scans, you would have to show that the relationship between multifidi and lower extremity MFI is a better indicator than multifidi MFI on its own. This can be grossly assessed by adding the two tests discussed in the next points.

2. Results: Please perform an ANCOVA on your three regressions to determine whether the slopes are significantly different.

3. Results: Please also include an ANOVA on the multifidi MFI between groups to complement Figure 4.

4. Results: Please report all statistical results in your Results section. The Discussion discusses associations between multifidi MFI and age, BMI and duration since injury and a comparison of multifidi MFI across groups. If these are outcomes of the statistical models, please include more details about the models and their outputs so the reader is aware of the results before the discussion.

5. Discussion: Please discuss additional explanations for the association between multifidi and lower extremity MFI. These are mentioned in the Introduction, but I would like to see a more in-depth treatment in the Discussion. “However, a number of hypotheses around injury severity, pain intensity and/or related disability (9, 10), heightened stress-responses (11-13) central/peripheral neuronal interference (14-16), and/or physical inactivity (17, 18) may be offered to explain the rapid expression and larger magnitude of MFI in patients with more severe self-reported symptoms.”

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript for PLOS ONE. Our author colleagues have undertaken a study examining the relationship between cervical multifidus MFI and lower limb MFI in controls, mild WAD and mod-severe WAD patients. Findings indicate a relationship between cervical muscle MFI and lower limb MFI in mod-severe WAD patients.

General comments:

This study provides important insight on the mechanisms underpinning chronic WAD, which I believe represents an advance in our knowledge of this challenging condition.

I see that the authors have already made substantial amendments to the manuscript in response to two prior reviewers’ comments. My impression is that they have adequately addressed prior reviewer concerns.

Specific comments:

Abstract

1) “…to investigate the relation between fat infiltration…” awkward wording, suggest revise to ‘…relationship between…’

Introduction

2) Minor typographic error: “…whiplash from an motor vehicle collision.” Correct to ‘…a motor vehicle…’

3) Paragraph 2: “…reporting lower levels of pain-related disability, those nominating full recovery, idiopathic neck pain, and healthy controls.” Suggest add citation to this paper here: Elliott et al. (2008). Fatty infiltrate in the cervical extensor muscles is not a feature of chronic, insidious-onset neck pain. Clin Radiol. 63, 681-687

4) Paragraph 3: In line with the hypothesis around SCI in WAD, I suggest also mentioning the preliminary publication detailing magnetic resonance spectroscopic evidence of cord injury below, as a complementary study supporting this theory:

Elliott JM, Pedler AR, Cowin G, Sterling M, McMahon K. Spinal cord metabolism and muscle water diffusion in whiplash. Spinal Cord. 2012 Jun;50(6):474-6

Methods

5) “…technique uses foreground and backgrounds seeds and let the segmented mask grow.” Awkward wording, suggest revise.

6) “The segmentation was performed by a musculoskeletal physiotherapist with >6 months experience.” Suggest slight re-wording for clarity that it is 6 months experience doing this particular analysis (or as applicable).

7) Statistics: Was there a power/sample size calculation undertaken?

Discussion

8) The Discussion reads well. My only comment is that it would be good to address the contrasting findings between this study and that of Pedler et al (2018) which did not find increased lower limb MFI in WAD:

Pedler A, McMahon K, Galloway G, Durbridge G, Sterling M (2018) Intramuscular fat is present in cervical multifidus but not soleus in patients with chronic whiplash associated disorders. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197438

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Plos1_Review_Karlsson.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Oct 2019

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

- Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We have adapted the manuscript to PLOS ONE's style requirements.

1. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TR, MB, and ODL receive salaries and are stockholders of Advanced MR Analytics AB. AK is a stockholder of Advanced MR Analytics AB. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE's policies on sharing data and material."

We note that one or more of the authors received salaries from a commercial company: Advanced MR Analytics AB

Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

FUNDING STATEMENT

"The study received funding from the Swedish Research Council and the Medical Research Council of South-East Sweden (FORSS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Furthermore, the commercial company AMRA Medical AB provided support in the form of salaries for authors TR, MB and ODL, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section."

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

COMPETING INTEREST STATEMENT

We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TR, MB, and ODL receive salaries and are stockholders of AMRA Medical AB. AK is a stockholder of AMRA Medical AB. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE's policies on sharing data and material.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO REVIEWER ARE FOUND IN THE SUPPORTING MATERIAL BUT ALSO CUT IN HERE:

Reviewer #1:

I thank the authors for their work in addressing my comments and believe the paper is now much more focused and streamlined. I have a few additional comments and suggestions primarily related to the discussion of the data and conclusions drawn.

OUR ANSWER: We thank you for once again taking the time to provide insightful comments to further improve our manuscript.

1. Introduction: I am still struggling with the connection between this data and the idea of “complementing the neck images with whole body coverage” for diagnostic purposes. First, you are unable to determine whether the stronger correlation between multifidi and lower extremity MFI in the severe WAD group pre-exists and predicts a worse outcome or is a progressive response to injury. The data that you discuss more strongly support the latter, in which case diagnostic whole-body scans would not be useful. Second, to argue for whole body scans, you would have to show that the relationship between multifidi and lower extremity MFI is a better indicator than multifidi MFI on its own. This can be grossly assessed by adding the two tests discussed in the next points.

OUR ANSWER: We apologize for unclear phrasing in the introduction. We understand the interpretation of us claiming inclusion of whole-body scans for diagnostic purposes, but this was not our intention. It was rather to communicate that studies involving whole-body scans can provide valuable information and knowledge in order to understand the mechanism behind fat infiltration in the multifidi muscles and why some individuals never fully recover from a whiplash trauma. We have now revised parts of the introduction to avoid the risk of such misinterpretation. We have also re-written the statistic section, the result and the discussion to bring more clarity regarding the suggested tests, please see our responses on points 2-4 below.

2. Results: Please perform an ANCOVA on your three regressions to determine whether the slopes are significantly different.

OUR ANSWER: In this study we used three different mixed linear models. In models B and C, group was included as a factor. In both these models, group differences were significant. This was unfortunately not clearly stated in the result section earlier. We have also made some changes in the discussion, conclusion and in our abstract based on comment 1-3 where we also emphasize the implications of a local injury more prominently than in the earlier version of this manuscript.

3. Results: Please also include an ANOVA on the multifidi MFI between groups to complement Figure 4.

OUR ANSWER: An ANOVA was already performed to complement Figure 4. We changed the wording in the result section to present it more distinctly.

Changes made: We replaced “The difference in the lower extremities’ MFI between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.11)” with “The ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences (p=0.11) in the lower extremities’ MFI between the different groups”

4. Results: Please report all statistical results in your Results section. The Discussion discusses associations between multifidi MFI and age, BMI and duration since injury and a comparison of multifidi MFI across groups. If these are outcomes of the statistical models, please include more details about the models and their outputs so the reader is aware of the results before the discussion.

OUR ANSWER: We realize that we have lacked in clarity in presenting our statistical analyses. In the statistic part of the method section we have addressed the different statistical models including ANOVA of the group measurements and the three different variations of the mixed linear models, which included variations of WAD group, age, BMI. A test of MFI versus Duration in the two WAD groups is also explained in that section. We have also improved consistency regarding the wording throughout the method, result and discussion to minimize miscommunication with a potential reader regarding which statistical analyses that have been performed.

5. Discussion: Please discuss additional explanations for the association between multifidi and lower extremity MFI. These are mentioned in the Introduction, but I would like to see a more in-depth treatment in the Discussion. “However, a number of hypotheses around injury severity, pain intensity and/or related disability (9, 10), heightened stress-responses (11-13) central/peripheral neuronal interference (14-16), and/or physical inactivity (17, 18) may be offered to explain the rapid expression and larger magnitude of MFI in patients with more severe self-reported symptoms.”

OUR ANSWER: We have added a reference suggested by reviewer 2 and also extended the discussion (paragraph 3 in the discussion) with a more detailed discussion of what the findings of this study might imply.

Reviewer #2:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript for PLOS ONE. Our author colleagues have undertaken a study examining the relationship between cervical multifidus MFI and lower limb MFI in controls, mild WAD and mod-severe WAD patients. Findings indicate a relationship between cervical muscle MFI and lower limb MFI in mod-severe WAD patients.

General comments:

This study provides important insight on the mechanisms underpinning chronic WAD, which I believe represents an advance in our knowledge of this challenging condition.

I see that the authors have already made substantial amendments to the manuscript in response to two prior reviewers’ comments. My impression is that they have adequately addressed prior reviewer concerns.

OUR ANSWER: Thank you for your time and suggestion on how to improve this manuscript further. Below you will find our responses to the comments.

Specific comments:

Abstract

1) “…to investigate the relation between fat infiltration…” awkward wording, suggest revise to ‘…relationship between…’

OUR ANSWER: Thank you. We have changed the wording in the abstract as suggested.

Introduction

2) Minor typographic error: “…whiplash from an motor vehicle collision.” Correct to ‘…a motor vehicle…’

OUR ANSWER: Thank you for noting the error. It has been corrected.

3) Paragraph 2: “…reporting lower levels of pain-related disability, those nominating full recovery, idiopathic neck pain, and healthy controls.” Suggest add citation to this paper here: Elliott et al. (2008). Fatty infiltrate in the cervical extensor muscles is not a feature of chronic, insidious-onset neck pain. Clin Radiol. 63, 681-687

OUR ANSWER: The suggested article is now cited in the manuscript at the suggested location in paragraph 2.

4) Paragraph 3: In line with the hypothesis around SCI in WAD, I suggest also mentioning the preliminary publication detailing magnetic resonance spectroscopic evidence of cord injury below, as a complementary study supporting this theory:

Elliott JM, Pedler AR, Cowin G, Sterling M, McMahon K. Spinal cord metabolism and muscle water diffusion in whiplash. Spinal Cord. 2012 Jun;50(6):474-6

OUR ANSWER: We added the potential effect of spinal cord injury with reference to this preliminary study in the third paragraph in introduction section.

Methods

5) “…technique uses foreground and backgrounds seeds and let the segmented mask grow.” Awkward wording, suggest revise.

OUR ANSWER: We have revised the sentence to remove the awkward wording and to improve clarity.

New sentence: “Shortly described, the technique uses an algorithm that calculates a segmentation based on a few manually defined foreground seeds (pixels within the region of interest) and background seeds (outside the region of interest).”

6) “The segmentation was performed by a musculoskeletal physiotherapist with >6 months experience.” Suggest slight re-wording for clarity that it is 6 months experience doing this particular analysis (or as applicable).

OUR ANSWER: This has now been clarified in the method section.

This is the new sentence: “The segmentation was performed by a musculoskeletal physiotherapist with more than 6 months experience doing this particular analysis.”

7) Statistics: Was there a power/sample size calculation undertaken?

OUR ANSWER: No, there was not. At the time for applying ethical approval and starting of the data acquisition, no reference literature measuring fat infiltration using fat- and water separation with age- and gender matched controls were found. In addition, literature has found indications that fat infiltration plays a role in WAD but estimating the smallest effect size that would be of scientific interest is still hard. However, we hope that with the evolved techniques around muscle fat infiltration with MR and the results from this study and others (e.g. Pedler et al 2018) will help in starting future studies with larger number of participants for further understanding of the mechanism of the whiplash trauma.

Discussion

8) The Discussion reads well. My only comment is that it would be good to address the contrasting findings between this study and that of Pedler et al (2018) which did not find increased lower limb MFI in WAD:

Pedler A, McMahon K, Galloway G, Durbridge G, Sterling M (2018) Intramuscular fat is present in cervical multifidus but not soleus in patients with chronic whiplash associated disorders. PLoS ONE 13(5):https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197438

OUR ANSWER: Thank you for the suggestion. We have addressed the study by Pedler et. al both in the introduction (last paragraph before the aim) and in the discussion (paragraph 3) to help the potential reader to understand not only the contrasting findings but also the similarities in the findings.

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Nov 2019

The relation between local and distal muscle fat infiltration in chronic whiplash using magnetic resonance imaging

PONE-D-19-19642R1

Dear Dr. Karlsson,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Xi Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you to the authors for their revisions of the manuscript. They have appropriately addressed the comments that I raised in my earlier review.

My only minor comment is that there is a typographic error in the spelling of Shapiro in the first paragraph of the Statistics section of the Method.

Reviewer #3: Previous reviewer's comments were fully addressed by the authors. It has significant improvement over the previous version and would be suitable for publication in the current form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Scott Farrell PhD

Reviewer #3: No

25 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-19642R1

The relation between local and distal muscle fat infiltration in chronic whiplash using magnetic resonance imaging

Dear Dr. Karlsson:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Xi Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE