Premium
Multisite reliability and repeatability of an advanced brain MRI protocol
Author(s) -
Schwartz Daniel L.,
Tagge Ian,
Powers Katherine,
Ahn Sinyeob,
Bakshi Rohit,
Calabresi Peter A.,
Todd Constable R.,
Grinstead John,
Henry Roland G.,
Nair Govind,
Papinutto Nico,
Pelletier Daniel,
Shinohara Russell,
Oh Jiwon,
Reich Daniel S.,
Sicotte Nancy L.,
Rooney William D.
Publication year - 2019
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.26652
Subject(s) - repeatability , protocol (science) , reliability (semiconductor) , computer science , medicine , reliability engineering , pathology , mathematics , physics , engineering , statistics , power (physics) , alternative medicine , quantum mechanics
Background MRI is the imaging modality of choice for diagnosis and intervention assessment in neurological disease. Its full potential has not been realized due in part to challenges in harmonizing advanced techniques across multiple sites. Purpose To develop a method for the assessment of reliability and repeatability of advanced multisite‐multisession neuroimaging studies and specifically to assess the reliability of an advanced MRI protocol, including multiband fMRI and diffusion tensor MRI, in a multisite setting. Study Type Prospective. Population Twice repeated measurement of a single subject with stable relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) at seven institutions. Field Strength/Sequence A 3 T MRI protocol included higher spatial resolution anatomical scans, a variable flip‐angle longitudinal relaxation rate constant (R 1 ≡ 1/T 1 ) measurement, quantitative magnetization transfer imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and a resting‐state fMRI (rsFMRI) series. Assessment Multiple methods of assessing intrasite repeatability and intersite reliability were evaluated for imaging metrics derived from each sequence. Statistical Tests Student's t ‐test, Pearson's r , and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) were employed to assess repeatability and reliability. Two new statistical metrics are introduced that frame reliability and repeatability in the respective units of the measurements themselves. Results Intrasite repeatability was excellent for quantitative R 1 , magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), and diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) based metrics ( r > 0.95). rsFMRI metrics were less repeatable ( r = 0.8). Intersite reliability was excellent for R 1 , MTR, and DWI (ICC >0.9), and moderate for rsFMRI metrics (ICC∼0.4). Data Conclusion From most reliable to least, using a new reliability metric introduced here, MTR > R 1 > DWI > rsFMRI; for repeatability, MTR > DWI > R 1 > rsFMRI. A graphical method for at‐a‐glance assessment of reliability and repeatability, effect sizes, and outlier identification in multisite‐multisession neuroimaging studies is introduced. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:878–888.