Statistical Evaluations of the Reproducibility and Reliability of 3‐Tesla High Resolution Magnetization Transfer Brain Images: A Pilot Study on Healthy Subjects

Abstract

Magnetization transfer imaging (MT) may have considerable promise for early detection and monitoring of subtle brain changes before they are apparent on conventional magnetic resonance images. At 3 Tesla (T), MT affords higher resolution and increased tissue contrast associated with macromolecules. The reliability and reproducibility of a new high-resolution MT strategy were assessed in brain images acquired from 9 healthy subjects. Repeated measures were taken for 12 brain regions of interest (ROIs): genu, splenium, and the left and right hemispheres of the hippocampus, caudate, putamen, thalamus, and cerebral white matter. Spearman's correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed. Multivariate mixed-effects regression models were used to fit the mean ROI values and to test the significance of the effects due to region, subject, observer, time, and manual repetition. A sensitivity analysis of various model specifications and the corresponding ICCs was conducted. Our statistical methods may be generalized to many similar evaluative studies of the reliability and reproducibility of various imaging modalities.

Comprehensive brain analysis with automated high‐resolution magnetization transfer measurements

“…This approach is labor intensive and subject to intra- and inter-rater variation that may result in suboptimal reproducibility (51, 60) (Fig. 4a).…”

“…Manual ROI placement has generally been used when obtaining regional MTR (48,51) for localized white matter and gray matter structures. This approach is labor-intensive and subject to intra-and interrater variation that may result in suboptimal reproducibility (51,60) (Fig. 4a).…”

“…Reproducibility between MTR values at 2 timepoints for the manual and automated measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV), as well as the instrumental standard deviation (ISD) (50,51). ICCs were computed through a one-way random effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model by assuming each subject was randomly selected from a larger population of different set of two timepoints.…”