Literature DB >> 33248256

Is it time to switch your T1W sequence? Assessing the impact of prospective motion correction on the reliability and quality of structural imaging.

Lei Ai1, R Cameron Craddock2, Nim Tottenham3, Jonathan P Dyke4, Ryan Lim5, Stanley Colcombe6, Michael Milham7, Alexandre R Franco8.   

Abstract

New large neuroimaging studies, such as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (ABCD) and Human Connectome Project (HCP) Development studies are adopting a new T1-weighted imaging sequence with prospective motion correction (PMC) in favor of the more traditional 3-Dimensional Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Gradient-Echo Imaging (MPRAGE) sequence. Here, we used a developmental dataset (ages 5-21, N = 348) from the Healthy Brain Network (HBN) Initiative to directly compare two widely used MRI structural sequences: one based on the Human Connectome Project (MPRAGE) and another based on the ABCD study (MPRAGE+PMC). We aimed to determine if the morphometric measurements obtained from both protocols are equivalent or if one sequence has a clear advantage over the other. The sequences were also compared through quality control measurements. Inter- and intra-sequence reliability were assessed with another set of participants (N = 71) from HBN that performed two MPRAGE and two MPRAGE+PMC sequences within the same imaging session, with one MPRAGE (MPRAGE1) and MPRAGE+PMC (MPRAGE+PMC1) pair at the beginning of the session and another pair (MPRAGE2 and MPRAGE+PMC2) at the end of the session. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) scores for morphometric measurements such as volume and cortical thickness showed that intra-sequence reliability is the highest with the two MPRAGE+PMC sequences and lowest with the two MPRAGE sequences. Regarding inter-sequence reliability, ICC scores were higher for the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE+PMC1 pair at the beginning of the session than the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE2 pair, possibly due to the higher motion artifacts in the MPRAGE2 run. Results also indicated that the MPRAGE+PMC sequence is robust, but not impervious, to high head motion. For quality control metrics, the traditional MPRAGE yielded better results than MPRAGE+PMC in 5 of the 8 measurements. In conclusion, morphometric measurements evaluated here showed high inter-sequence reliability between the MPRAGE and MPRAGE+PMC sequences, especially in images with low head motion. We suggest that studies targeting hyperkinetic populations use the MPRAGE+PMC sequence, given its robustness to head motion and higher reliability scores. However, neuroimaging researchers studying non-hyperkinetic participants can choose either MPRAGE or MPRAGE+PMC sequences, but should carefully consider the apparent tradeoff between relatively increased reliability, but reduced quality control metrics when using the MPRAGE+PMC sequence.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33248256     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117585

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  4 in total

1.  A longitudinal resource for studying connectome development and its psychiatric associations during childhood.

Authors:  Russell H Tobe; Anna MacKay-Brandt; Ryan Lim; Melissa Kramer; Melissa M Breland; Lucia Tu; Yiwen Tian; Kristin Dietz Trautman; Caixia Hu; Raj Sangoi; Lindsay Alexander; Vilma Gabbay; F Xavier Castellanos; Bennett L Leventhal; R Cameron Craddock; Stanley J Colcombe; Alexandre R Franco; Michael P Milham
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 8.501

2.  Scan Once, Analyse Many: Using Large Open-Access Neuroimaging Datasets to Understand the Brain.

Authors:  Christopher R Madan
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2021-05-11

3.  Feasibility of FreeSurfer Processing for T1-Weighted Brain Images of 5-Year-Olds: Semiautomated Protocol of FinnBrain Neuroimaging Lab.

Authors:  Elmo P Pulli; Eero Silver; Venla Kumpulainen; Anni Copeland; Harri Merisaari; Jani Saunavaara; Riitta Parkkola; Tuire Lähdesmäki; Ekaterina Saukko; Saara Nolvi; Eeva-Leena Kataja; Riikka Korja; Linnea Karlsson; Hasse Karlsson; Jetro J Tuulari
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 4.  Best Practices in Structural Neuroimaging of Neurodevelopmental Disorders.

Authors:  Lea L Backhausen; Megan M Herting; Christian K Tamnes; Nora C Vetter
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 6.940

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.