Premium
Method for simultaneous voxel‐based morphometry of the brain and cervical spinal cord area measurements using 3D‐MDEFT
Author(s) -
Freund Patrick A.B.,
Dalton Catherine,
WheelerKingshott Claudia A.M.,
Glensman Janice,
Bradbury David,
Thompson Alan J.,
Weiskopf Nikolaus
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.22340
Subject(s) - reproducibility , spinal cord , medicine , nuclear medicine , protocol (science) , magnetic resonance imaging , voxel , radiology , mathematics , pathology , statistics , alternative medicine , psychiatry
Purpose To investigate whether a 3D‐modified driven equilibrium Fourier transform (MDEFT)‐based acquisition protocol established for brain morphometry also yields reliable information about the cross‐sectional spinal cord area (SCA). Materials and Methods Images of brain and cervical cord of 10 controls and eight subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI) were acquired with the 3D‐MDEFT‐based imaging protocol and an 8‐channel receive head coil. The new protocol was validated by two observers 1) comparing the SCA measured with the standard acquisition protocol (3D magnetization‐prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo [MPRAGE] and dedicated spine coil) and the new protocol; and 2) determining the scan–rescan reproducibility of the new protocol. Results Scan–rescan reproducibility of SCA measurements with the MDEFT approach showed a similar precision for both observers with standard deviation (SD) <4.5 mm 2 and coefficient of variation (CV) ≤5.1%. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a main effect of observer and interaction between observer and scan protocol that could be primarily attributed to a small observer bias for MPRAGE (difference in SCA <2.1 mm 2 ). No bias was observed for 3D‐MDEFT vs. 3D‐MPRAGE. Conclusion The 3D‐MDEFT method allows for robust unbiased assessment of SCA in addition to brain morphology. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;32:1242–1247. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.