MRI Research - Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuroimaging, Brain Tumors

MRI Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about MRI, including details on magnetic resonance imaging, neuroimaging, brain tumors.


MRI Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About MRI

Books on MRI

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Longitudinal stability of MRI for mapping brain change using tensor-based morphometry.

Leow AD, Klunder AD, Jack CR, Toga AW, Dale AM, Bernstein MA, Britson PJ, Gunter JL, Ward CP, Whitwell JL, Borowski BJ, Fleisher AS, Fox NC, Harvey D, Kornak J, Schuff N, Studholme C, Alexander GE, Weiner MW, Thompson PM,

Laboratory of Neuro Imaging, Brain Mapping Division, Department of Neurology and Semel Institute of Neuroscience, UCLA School of Medicine, 635 Charles E. Young Drive South, Suite 225E, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7332, USA.

Measures of brain change can be computed from sequential MRI scans, providing valuable information on disease progression, e.g., for patient monitoring and drug trials. Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) creates maps of these brain changes, visualizing the 3D profile and rates of tissue growth or atrophy, but its sensitivity depends on the contrast and geometric stability of the images. As part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), 17 normal elderly subjects were scanned twice (at a 2-week interval) with several 3D 1.5 T MRI pulse sequences: high and low flip angle SPGR/FLASH (from which Synthetic T1 images were generated), MP-RAGE, IR-SPGR (N = 10) and MEDIC (N = 7) scans. For each subject and scan type, a 3D deformation map aligned baseline and follow-up scans, computed with a nonlinear, inverse-consistent elastic registration algorithm. Voxelwise statistics, in ICBM stereotaxic space, visualized the profile of mean absolute change and its cross-subject variance; these maps were then compared using permutation testing. Image stability depended on: (1) the pulse sequence; (2) the transmit/receive coil type (birdcage versus phased array); (3) spatial distortion corrections (using MEDIC sequence information); (4) B1-field intensity inhomogeneity correction (using N3). SPGR/FLASH images acquired using a birdcage coil had least overall deviation. N3 correction reduced coil type and pulse sequence differences and improved scan reproducibility, except for Synthetic T1 images (which were intrinsically corrected for B1-inhomogeneity). No strong evidence favored B0 correction. Although SPGR/FLASH images showed least deviation here, pulse sequence selection for the ADNI project was based on multiple additional image analyses, to be reported elsewhere.

Published 1 June 2006 in Neuroimage, 31(2): 627-40.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 MRI Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



MRI Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (April)
  Issue 2 (May)
  Issue 3 (June)
  Issue 4 (July)
  Issue 5 (August)
  Issue 6 (September)
  Issue 7 (October)
  Issue 8 (November)
  Issue 9 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)



MRI Books

Mri Parameters and Positioning

Mri Parameters and Positioning