Current neuroimaging acquisition and processing approaches tend to be optimised for quality rather than speed. However, rapid acquisition and processing of neuroimaging data can lead to novel neuroimaging paradigms, such as adaptive acquisition, where rapidly processed data is used to inform subsequent image acquisition steps. Here we first evaluate the impact of several processing steps on the processing time and quality of registration of manually labelled T1‐weighted MRI scans. Subsequently, we apply the selected rapid processing pipeline both to rapidly acquired multicontrast EPImix scans of 95 participants (which include T1‐FLAIR, T2, T2*, T2‐FLAIR, DWI and ADC contrasts, acquired in ~1 min), as well as to slower, more standard single‐contrast T1‐weighted scans of a subset of 66 participants. We quantify the correspondence between EPImix T1‐FLAIR and single‐contrast T1‐weighted scans, using correlations between voxels and regions of interest across participants, measures of within‐ and between‐participant identifiability as well as regional structural covariance networks. Furthermore, we explore the use of EPImix for the rapid construction of morphometric similarity networks. Finally, we quantify the reliability of EPImix‐derived data using test–retest scans of 10 participants. Our results demonstrate that quantitative information can be derived from a neuroimaging scan acquired and processed within minutes, which could further be used to implement adaptive multimodal imaging and tailor neuroimaging examinations to individual patients.

The multicontrast EPImix sequence generates six contrasts, including a T1-weighted scan, in ~1 min. EPImix shows comparable diagnostic performance to conventional scans under qualitative clinical evaluation, and similarities in simple quantitative measures including contrast intensity. However, EPImix scans have not yet been compared to standard MRI scans using established quantitative measures. In this study, we compared conventional and EPImix-derived T1-weighted scans of 64 healthy participants using tissue volume estimates and predicted brain-age. All scans were pre-processed using the SPM12 DARTEL pipeline, generating measures of grey matter, white matter and cerebrospinal fluid volume. Brain-age was predicted using brainageR, a Gaussian Processes Regression model previously trained on a large sample of standard T1-weighted scans. Estimates of both global and voxel-wise tissue volume showed significantly similar results between standard and EPImix-derived T1-weighted scans. Brain-age estimates from both sequences were significantly correlated, although EPImix T1-weighted scans showed a systematic offset in predictions of chronological age. Supplementary analyses suggest that this is likely caused by the reduced field of view of EPImix scans, and the use of a brain-age model trained using conventional T1-weighted scans. However, this systematic error can be corrected using additional regression of T1-predicted brain-age onto EPImix-predicted brain-age. Finally, retest EPImix scans acquired for 10 participants demonstrated high test-retest reliability in all evaluated quantitative measurements. Quantitative analysis of EPImix scans has potential to reduce scanning time, increasing participant comfort and reducing cost, as well as to support automation of scanning, utilising active learning for faster and individually-tailored (neuro)imaging.

Current neuroimaging acquisition and processing approaches tend to be optimised for quality rather than speed. However, rapid acquisition and processing of neuroimaging data can lead to novel neuroimaging paradigms, such as adaptive acquisition, where rapidly processed data is used to inform subsequent image acquisition steps. Here we first evaluate the impact of several processing steps on the processing time and quality of registration of manually labelled T1-weighted MRI scans. Subsequently, we apply the selected rapid processing pipeline both to rapidly acquired multicontrast EPImix scans of 95 participants (which include T1-FLAIR, T2, T2*, T2-FLAIR, DWI & ADC contrasts, acquired in ~1 minute), as well as to slower, more standard single-contrast T1-weighted scans of a subset of 66 participants. We quantify the correspondence between EPImix and single-contrast T1-weighted scans, using correlations between voxels and regions of interest across participants, measures of within- and between-participant identifiability as well as regional structural covariance networks. Furthermore, we explore the use of EPImix for the rapid construction of morphometric similarity networks. Finally, we quantify the reliability of EPImix-derived data using test-retest scans of 10 participants. Our results demonstrate that quantitative information can be derived from a neuroimaging scan acquired and processed within minutes, which could further be used to implement adaptive multimodal imaging and tailor neuroimaging examinations to individual patients.

The multicontrast EPImix sequence generates 6 contrasts, including a T1-weighted scan, in ~1 minute. EPImix shows comparable diagnostic performance to conventional scans under qualitative clinical evaluation, and similarities in simple quantitative measures including contrast intensity. However, EPImix scans have not yet been compared to standard MRI scans using established quantitative measures. In this study, we compared conventional and EPImix-derived T1-weighted scans of 64 healthy participants using tissue volume estimates and predicted brain-age. All scans were pre-processed using the SPM12 DARTEL pipeline, generating measures of grey matter, white matter and cerebrospinal fluid volume. Brain-age was predicted using brainageR, a Gaussian process regression model previously trained on a large sample of standard T1-weighted scans. Estimates of both global and voxel-wise tissue volume showed significantly similar results between standard and EPImix-derived T1-weighted scans. Brain-age estimates from both sequences were significantly correlated, although EPImix T1-weighted scans showed a systematic offset in predictions of chronological age. Supplementary analyses suggest that this is likely caused by the reduced field-of-view of EPImix scans, and the use of a brain-age model trained using conventional T1-weighted scans. However, this systematic error can be corrected using additional regression of T1-predicted brain-age onto EPImix-predicted brain-age. Finally, retest EPImix scans acquired for 10 participants demonstrated high test-retest reliability in all evaluated quantitative measurements. Quantitative analysis of EPImix scans holds potential to reduce scanning time, increasing participant comfort and reducing cost, as well as to support automation of scanning, utilising active learning for faster and individually-tailored (neuro)imaging.