Literature DB >> 35266588

Reproducibility and postacquisition correction methods for quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).

Sean W Flannery1, Edward G Walsh2, Ryan M Sanborn3, Cynthia A Chrostek1, Meggin Q Costa1, Shankar G Kaushal3, Martha M Murray3, Braden C Fleming1, Ata M Kiapour3.   

Abstract

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging has been used to evaluate the structural integrity of knee joint structures. However, variations in acquisition parameters between scanners pose significant challenges. Understanding the effect of small differences in acquisition parameters for quantitative sequences is vital to the validity of cross-institutional studies, and for the harmonization of large, heterogeneous datasets to train machine learning models. The study objective was to assess the reproducibility of T2 * relaxometry and the constructive interference in steady-state sequence (CISS) across scanners, with minimal hardware-necessitated changes to acquisition parameters. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between scanners in anterior cruciate ligament T2 * relaxation times and CISS signal intensities (SI). Secondarily, it was hypothesized that differences could be corrected by rescaling the SI distribution to harmonize between scanners. Seven volunteers were scanned on 3T Prisma and Tim Trio scanners (Siemens). Three correction methods were evaluated for T2 *: inverse echo time scaling, z-scoring, and Nyúl histogram matching. For CISS, scans were normalized to cortical bone, scaled by the background noise ratio, and log-transformed. Before correction, significant mean differences of 6.0 ± 3.2 ms (71.8%; p = 0.02) and 0.49 ± 0.15 units (40.7%; p = 0.02) for T2 * and CISS across scanners were observed, respectively. After rescaling, T2 * differences decreased to 2.6 ± 2.7 ms (23.9%; p = 0.03), 1.3 ± 2.5 ms (10.9%; p = 0.13), and 1.27 ± 3.0 ms (19.6%; p = 0.40) for inverse echo time, z-scoring, and Nyúl, respectively, while CISS decreased to 0.01 ± 0.11 units (4.0%; p = 0.87). These findings suggest that small acquisition parameter differences may lead to large changes in T2 * and SI values that must be reconciled to compare data across magnets.
© 2022 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CISS; MRI; T2* relaxometry; harmonization; reproducibility

Year:  2022        PMID: 35266588      PMCID: PMC9463398          DOI: 10.1002/jor.25319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.102


  28 in total

1.  High incidence and costs for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed in Australia from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008: time for an anterior cruciate ligament register by Scandinavian model?

Authors:  K W Janssen; J W Orchard; T R Driscoll; W van Mechelen
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 4.221

2.  UTE-T2∗ mapping detects sub-clinical meniscus injury after anterior cruciate ligament tear.

Authors:  A Williams; Y Qian; S Golla; C R Chu
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 6.576

3.  Diabetes and Deficits in Cortical Bone Density, Microarchitecture, and Bone Size: Framingham HR-pQCT Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Samelson; Serkalem Demissie; L Adrienne Cupples; Xiaochun Zhang; Hanfei Xu; Ching-Ti Liu; Steven K Boyd; Robert R McLean; Kerry E Broe; Douglas P Kiel; Mary L Bouxsein
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization.

Authors:  L G Nyúl; J K Udupa; X Zhang
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  MRI volume and signal intensity of ACL graft predict clinical, functional, and patient-oriented outcome measures after ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Alison M Biercevicz; Matthew R Akelman; Paul D Fadale; Michael J Hulstyn; Robert M Shalvoy; Gary J Badger; Glenn A Tung; Heidi L Oksendahl; Braden C Fleming
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  In Situ, noninvasive, T2*-weighted MRI-derived parameters predict ex vivo structural properties of an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction or bioenhanced primary repair in a porcine model.

Authors:  Alison M Biercevicz; Daniel L Miranda; Jason T Machan; Martha M Murray; Braden C Fleming
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 7.  MRI-Based Quantitative Osteoporosis Imaging at the Spine and Femur.

Authors:  Nico Sollmann; Maximilian T Löffler; Sophia Kronthaler; Christof Böhm; Michael Dieckmeyer; Stefan Ruschke; Jan S Kirschke; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Roland Krug; Thomas Baum
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Automated magnetic resonance image segmentation of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Sean W Flannery; Ata M Kiapour; David J Edgar; Martha M Murray; Braden C Fleming
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 3.494

Review 9.  Assessment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Maturity With Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Pieter Van Dyck; Katja Zazulia; Céline Smekens; Christiaan H W Heusdens; Thomas Janssens; Jan Sijbers
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-06-03

Review 10.  SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python.

Authors:  Pauli Virtanen; Ralf Gommers; Travis E Oliphant; Matt Haberland; Tyler Reddy; David Cournapeau; Evgeni Burovski; Pearu Peterson; Warren Weckesser; Jonathan Bright; Stéfan J van der Walt; Matthew Brett; Joshua Wilson; K Jarrod Millman; Nikolay Mayorov; Andrew R J Nelson; Eric Jones; Robert Kern; Eric Larson; C J Carey; İlhan Polat; Yu Feng; Eric W Moore; Jake VanderPlas; Denis Laxalde; Josef Perktold; Robert Cimrman; Ian Henriksen; E A Quintero; Charles R Harris; Anne M Archibald; Antônio H Ribeiro; Fabian Pedregosa; Paul van Mulbregt
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 28.547

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.