Premium
Study of common quantification methods of amide proton transfer magnetic resonance imaging for ischemic stroke detection
Author(s) -
Foo Lee Sze,
Larkin James R.,
Sutherland Brad A.,
Ray Kevin J.,
Yap WunShe,
Hum Yan Chai,
Lai Khin Wee,
Manan Hanani Abdul,
Sibson Nicola R.,
Tee Yee Kai
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.28565
Subject(s) - jaccard index , nuclear magnetic resonance , magnetic resonance imaging , cerebral blood flow , magnetization transfer , nuclear medicine , common carotid artery , diffusion mri , effective diffusion coefficient , medicine , ischemic stroke , correlation coefficient , correlation , ischemia , cardiology , radiology , carotid arteries , mathematics , physics , pattern recognition (psychology) , computer science , artificial intelligence , statistics , geometry
Purpose To assess the correlation and differences between common amide proton transfer (APT) quantification methods in the diagnosis of ischemic stroke. Methods Five APT quantification methods, including asymmetry analysis and its variants as well as two Lorentzian model‐based methods, were applied to data acquired from six rats that underwent middle cerebral artery occlusion scanned at 9.4T. Diffusion and perfusion‐weighted images, and water relaxation time maps were also acquired to study the relationship of these conventional imaging modalities with the different APT quantification methods. Results The APT ischemic area estimates had varying sizes (Jaccard index: 0.544 ≤ J ≤ 0.971) and had varying correlations in their distributions (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.104 ≤ r ≤ 0.995), revealing discrepancies in the quantified ischemic areas. The Lorentzian methods produced the highest contrast‐to‐noise ratios (CNRs; 1.427 ≤ CNR ≤ 2.002), but generated APT ischemic areas that were comparable in size to the cerebral blood flow (CBF) deficit areas; asymmetry analysis and its variants produced APT ischemic areas that were smaller than the CBF deficit areas but larger than the apparent diffusion coefficient deficit areas, though having lower CNRs (0.561 ≤ CNR ≤ 1.083). Conclusion There is a need to further investigate the accuracy and correlation of each quantification method with the pathophysiology using a larger scale multi‐imaging modality and multi‐time‐point clinical study. Future studies should include the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry results alongside the findings of the study to facilitate the comparison of results between different centers and also the published literature.