Reliability of the freehand region-of-interest method in quantitative cerebral diffusion tensor imaging.
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Axial diffusivity
Diffusion tensor imaging
Fractional anisotropy
Freehand method
Intra-class correlation coefficient
ROI-based method
Radial diffusivity
Reliability
Repeatability
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 10 2021
04 10 2021
Historique:
received:
04
01
2021
accepted:
01
09
2021
entrez:
5
10
2021
pubmed:
6
10
2021
medline:
22
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique used for evaluating changes in the white matter in brain parenchyma. The reliability of quantitative DTI analysis is influenced by several factors, such as the imaging protocol, pre-processing and post-processing methods, and selected diffusion parameters. The region-of-interest (ROI) method is most widely used of the post-processing methods because it is found in commercial software. The focus of our research was to study the reliability of the freehand ROI method using various intra- and inter-observer analyses. This study included 40 neurologically healthy participants who underwent diffusion MRI of the brain with a 3 T scanner. The measurements were performed at nine different anatomical locations using a freehand ROI method. The data extracted from the ROIs included the regional mean values, intra- and inter-observer variability and reliability. The used DTI parameters were fractional anisotropy (FA), the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and axial (AD) and radial (RD) diffusivity. The average intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the intra-observer was found to be 0.9 (excellent). The single ICC results were excellent (> 0.8) or adequate (> 0.69) in eight out of the nine regions in terms of FA and ADC. The most reliable results were found in the frontobasal regions. Significant differences between age groups were also found in the frontobasal regions. Specifically, the FA and AD values were significantly higher and the RD values lower in the youngest age group (18-30 years) compared to the other age groups. The quantitative freehand ROI method can be considered highly reliable for the average ICC and mostly adequate for the single ICC. The freehand method is suitable for research work with a well-experienced observer. Measurements should be performed at least twice in the same region to ensure that the results are sufficiently reliable. In our study, reliability was slightly undermined by artifacts in some regions such as the cerebral peduncle and centrum semiovale. From a clinical point of view, the results are most reliable in adults under the age of 30, when age-related changes in brain white matter have not yet occurred.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique used for evaluating changes in the white matter in brain parenchyma. The reliability of quantitative DTI analysis is influenced by several factors, such as the imaging protocol, pre-processing and post-processing methods, and selected diffusion parameters. The region-of-interest (ROI) method is most widely used of the post-processing methods because it is found in commercial software. The focus of our research was to study the reliability of the freehand ROI method using various intra- and inter-observer analyses.
METHODS
This study included 40 neurologically healthy participants who underwent diffusion MRI of the brain with a 3 T scanner. The measurements were performed at nine different anatomical locations using a freehand ROI method. The data extracted from the ROIs included the regional mean values, intra- and inter-observer variability and reliability. The used DTI parameters were fractional anisotropy (FA), the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and axial (AD) and radial (RD) diffusivity.
RESULTS
The average intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the intra-observer was found to be 0.9 (excellent). The single ICC results were excellent (> 0.8) or adequate (> 0.69) in eight out of the nine regions in terms of FA and ADC. The most reliable results were found in the frontobasal regions. Significant differences between age groups were also found in the frontobasal regions. Specifically, the FA and AD values were significantly higher and the RD values lower in the youngest age group (18-30 years) compared to the other age groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative freehand ROI method can be considered highly reliable for the average ICC and mostly adequate for the single ICC. The freehand method is suitable for research work with a well-experienced observer. Measurements should be performed at least twice in the same region to ensure that the results are sufficiently reliable. In our study, reliability was slightly undermined by artifacts in some regions such as the cerebral peduncle and centrum semiovale. From a clinical point of view, the results are most reliable in adults under the age of 30, when age-related changes in brain white matter have not yet occurred.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34607554
doi: 10.1186/s12880-021-00663-8
pii: 10.1186/s12880-021-00663-8
pmc: PMC8491381
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
144Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Comput Intell Neurosci. 2010;:254032
pubmed: 20069121
Acta Radiol Open. 2015 Jan 24;4(2):2047981614546795
pubmed: 25793107
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2005 Aug;15(3):655-65, xii
pubmed: 16360595
Neuroimage. 2005 May 15;26(1):132-40
pubmed: 15862213
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Oct;18(4):427-33
pubmed: 14508779
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jun;33(6):1456-63
pubmed: 21591016
Ann Neurol. 1999 Feb;45(2):265-9
pubmed: 9989633
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Feb;27(2):440-6
pubmed: 16484426
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 11;7(1):11141
pubmed: 28894296
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Neuroimage. 2001 Sep;14(3):723-35
pubmed: 11506544
Neurotherapeutics. 2007 Jul;4(3):316-29
pubmed: 17599699
J Neurotrauma. 2013 Sep 15;30(18):1587-95
pubmed: 23758292
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008 Jul-Aug;47(1):129-38
pubmed: 17764763
Brain Imaging Behav. 2012 Jun;6(2):283-92
pubmed: 22477019
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 May;29(5):843-52
pubmed: 18339719
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Jun;29(6):1128-33
pubmed: 18372415
Psychiatry Res. 2006 Jun 30;147(1):69-78
pubmed: 16797169
Neuroimage. 2010 Aug 15;52(2):455-69
pubmed: 20430102
Front Behav Neurosci. 2018 Jun 27;12:118
pubmed: 30013466
Med Image Anal. 2002 Jun;6(2):93-108
pubmed: 12044998
Neuroimage. 2003 Oct;20(2):1140-53
pubmed: 14568483
Radiology. 2004 Jan;230(1):77-87
pubmed: 14645885
Neuroimage. 2019 Aug 15;197:598-607
pubmed: 31029873
Neuroimage. 2003 Feb;18(2):348-59
pubmed: 12595188
Neuroimage. 2011 Apr 15;55(4):1454-60
pubmed: 21238597
Neuroimage. 2016 Mar;128:180-192
pubmed: 26724777
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Dec;46(6):1174-88
pubmed: 11746585
Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Oct;17(8):1121-33
pubmed: 10499674
Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Jul;31(6):827-39
pubmed: 23623031
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 15;31(4):1487-505
pubmed: 16624579
NMR Biomed. 2010 Aug;23(7):803-20
pubmed: 20886566
Eur Radiol. 2006 Aug;16(8):1651-8
pubmed: 16532356
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Apr;21(2):87-99
pubmed: 21613874
Acta Radiol. 2010 Sep;51(7):800-7
pubmed: 20707664
Neuroradiology. 2009 Jan;51(1):3-9
pubmed: 18704391
BMC Med Imaging. 2012 Oct 11;12:30
pubmed: 23057584
J Pain. 2014 Nov;15(11):1110-1119
pubmed: 25135468
Brain Imaging Behav. 2014 Sep;8(3):359-69
pubmed: 22203524
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Jun;61(6):1336-49
pubmed: 19319973
Neuroimage. 2014 Oct 15;100:358-69
pubmed: 24945661
Neurobiol Aging. 2012 Mar;33(3):488-498.e2
pubmed: 20594616
Radiology. 2009 Sep;252(3):816-24
pubmed: 19567646
Nat Commun. 2016 Dec 15;7:13629
pubmed: 27976682
J Mol Neurosci. 2008;34(1):51-61
pubmed: 18157658
Radiology. 1999 Sep;212(3):770-84
pubmed: 10478246
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Dec;30(12):3924-33
pubmed: 19507154
Neuroimage. 2007 Jan 15;34(2):733-42
pubmed: 17092743
Radiology. 2001 Nov;221(2):550-6
pubmed: 11687703
BMC Med Imaging. 2011 Jan 06;11:2
pubmed: 21211049
Radiology. 1996 Dec;201(3):637-48
pubmed: 8939209
BMC Med Imaging. 2016 Jul 11;16(1):42
pubmed: 27400959
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Jan;65(1):29-35
pubmed: 18162353
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Dec;32(11):2103-9
pubmed: 21998104
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Sep;26(3):756-67
pubmed: 17729339
Neuroimage. 2006 Nov 15;33(3):867-77
pubmed: 17000119
Front Neurol. 2019 Feb 26;10:158
pubmed: 30863361
Brain. 2014 Jul;137(Pt 7):1876-82
pubmed: 24818956
Neuroimage. 2012 Mar;60(1):340-52
pubmed: 22178809
Brain Struct Funct. 2018 May;223(4):1849-1862
pubmed: 29250703
Pol J Radiol. 2015 Oct 05;80:457-63
pubmed: 26516389
Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Mar;36(2):111-24
pubmed: 23807198
J Neurosci. 2009 Mar 4;29(9):2805-13
pubmed: 19261876
Neuroimage. 2002 Nov;17(3):1429-36
pubmed: 12414282
Hum Brain Mapp. 2017 Jul;38(7):3637-3647
pubmed: 28429407
Neuroimage Clin. 2019;22:101785
pubmed: 30927603