Magnus Borga1,2,3, André Ahlgren3, Thobias Romu3, Per Widholm2,3,4, Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard2,3,4, Janne West1,2,3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 2. Center for Medical Image science and Visualization, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 3. AMRA Medical AB, Linköping, Sweden. 4. Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is an absence of reproducibility studies on MRI-based body composition analysis in current literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the between-scanner reproducibility and the repeatability of a method for MRI-based body composition analysis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers of varying body mass index and adiposity were each scanned twice on five different 1.5T and 3T scanners from three different vendors. Two-point Dixon neck-to knee images and two additional liver scans were acquired with similar protocols. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (ASAT) volume, thigh muscle volume, and muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in the thigh muscle were measured. Liver proton density fat fraction (PDFF) was assessed using two different methods, the scanner vendor's 6-point method and an in-house 2-point method. Within-scanner test-retest repeatability and between-scanner reproducibility were calculated using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Repeatability coefficients were 13 centiliters (cl) (VAT), 24 cl (ASAT), 17 cl (total thigh muscle volume), 0.53% (MFI), and 1.27-1.37% for liver PDFF. Reproducibility coefficients were 24 cl (VAT), 42 cl (ASAT), 31 cl (total thigh muscle volume), 1.44% (MFI), and 2.37-2.40% for liver PDFF. CONCLUSION: For all measures except MFI, the within-scanner repeatability explained much of the overall reproducibility. The two methods for measuring liver fat had similar reproducibility. This study showed that the investigated method eliminates effects due to scanner differences. The results can be used for power calculations in clinical studies or to better understand the scanner-induced variability in clinical applications.
PURPOSE: There is an absence of reproducibility studies on MRI-based body composition analysis in current literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the between-scanner reproducibility and the repeatability of a method for MRI-based body composition analysis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers of varying body mass index and adiposity were each scanned twice on five different 1.5T and 3T scanners from three different vendors. Two-point Dixon neck-to knee images and two additional liver scans were acquired with similar protocols. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (ASAT) volume, thigh muscle volume, and muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in the thigh muscle were measured. Liver proton density fat fraction (PDFF) was assessed using two different methods, the scanner vendor's 6-point method and an in-house 2-point method. Within-scanner test-retest repeatability and between-scanner reproducibility were calculated using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Repeatability coefficients were 13 centiliters (cl) (VAT), 24 cl (ASAT), 17 cl (total thigh muscle volume), 0.53% (MFI), and 1.27-1.37% for liver PDFF. Reproducibility coefficients were 24 cl (VAT), 42 cl (ASAT), 31 cl (total thigh muscle volume), 1.44% (MFI), and 2.37-2.40% for liver PDFF. CONCLUSION: For all measures except MFI, the within-scanner repeatability explained much of the overall reproducibility. The two methods for measuring liver fat had similar reproducibility. This study showed that the investigated method eliminates effects due to scanner differences. The results can be used for power calculations in clinical studies or to better understand the scanner-induced variability in clinical applications.
Authors: Sanaa Tejani; Cody McCoy; Colby R Ayers; Tiffany M Powell-Wiley; Jean-Pierre Després; Jennifer Linge; Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard; Mikael Petersson; Magnus Borga; Ian J Neeland Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Philip A Waghorn; Diego S Ferreira; Derek J Erstad; Nicholas J Rotile; Ricard Masia; Chloe M Jones; Chuantao Tu; Mozhdeh Sojoodi; Yin-Ching I Chen; Franklin Schlerman; Jeremy Wellen; Robert V P Martinez; Kenneth K Tanabe; Bryan C Fuchs; Peter Caravan Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Manu V Chakravarthy; Mohammad S Siddiqui; Mikael F Forsgren; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Hans Lennart Persson; Apostolos Sioutas; Magnus Kentson; Petra Jacobson; Peter Lundberg; Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard; Mikael Fredrik Forsgren Journal: J Inflamm Res Date: 2022-08-01
Authors: Björn Gerdle; Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard; Eva Lund; Ann Bengtsson; Peter Lundberg; Bijar Ghafouri; Mikael Fredrik Forsgren Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-08-27 Impact factor: 2.832
Authors: Alberto Colombo; Luca Bombelli; Paul E Summers; Giulia Saia; Fabio Zugni; Giulia Marvaso; Robert Grimm; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Anwar R Padhani; Giuseppe Petralia Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-20