Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Brain Inj. 2016;30(12):1442-1451.

Quantitative structural neuroimaging of mild traumatic brain injury in the Chronic Effects of Neurotrauma Consortium (CENC): Comparison of volumetric data within and across scanners.

Author information

1
a Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Houston , TX , USA.
2
b Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
3
c Department of Neurology.
4
d Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine , Houston , TX , USA.
5
e Department of Psychology.
6
f Department of Neuroscience , Brigham Young University , Provo , UT , USA.
7
g Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging.
8
h Department of Neurological Surgery , University of Virginia , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
9
i Alaska Radiology Associates , Anchorage , AK , USA.
10
j Missouri Institute of Mental Health , University of Missouri , St. Louis , MO , USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

An important component of the multicentre Chronic Effects of Neurotrauma Consortium (CENC) project is the development of improved quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods, including volumetric analysis. Although many studies routinely employ quality assurance (QA) procedures including MR and human phantoms to promote accuracy and monitor site differences, few studies perform rigorous direct comparisons of these data nor report findings that enable inference regarding site-to-site comparability. These gaps in evaluating cross-site differences are concerning, especially given the well-established differences that can occur between data acquired on scanners with different manufacturer, hardware or software.

METHODS:

This study reports findings on (1) a series of studies utilizing two MR phantoms to interrogate machine-based variability using data collected on the same magnet, (2) a human phantom repeatedly imaged on the same scanner to investigate within-subject, within-site variability and (3) a human phantom imaged on three different scanners to examine within subject, between-site variability.

RESULTS:

Although variability is relatively minimal for the phantom scanned on the same magnet, significantly more variability is introduced in a human subject, particularly when regions are relatively small or multiple sites used.

CONCLUSION:

Vigilance when combining data from different sites is suggested and that future efforts address these issues.

KEYWORDS:

Neuroimaging; brain imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; phantoms; veterans; volumetrics

PMID:
27834540
DOI:
10.1080/02699052.2016.1219063
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center