Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Comparison of multicenter MRI protocols for visualizing the spinal cord gray matter


Cohen-Adad, Julien; Alonso-Ortiz, Eva; Alley, Stephanie; Lagana, Maria Marcella; Baglio, Francesca; Vannesjo, Signe Johanna; Karbasforoushan, Haleh; Seif, Maryam; et al (2022). Comparison of multicenter MRI protocols for visualizing the spinal cord gray matter. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 88(2):849-859.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Spinal cord gray-matter imaging is valuable for a number of applications, but remains challenging. The purpose of this work was to compare various MRI protocols at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T for visualizing the gray matter.
METHODS: In vivo data of the cervical spinal cord were collected from nine different imaging centers. Data processing consisted of automatically segmenting the spinal cord and its gray matter and co-registering back-to-back scans. We computed the SNR using two methods (SNR_single using a single scan and SNR_diff using the difference between back-to-back scans) and the white/gray matter contrast-to-noise ratio per unit time. Synthetic phantom data were generated to evaluate the metrics performance. Experienced radiologists qualitatively scored the images. We ran the same processing on an open-access multicenter data set of the spinal cord MRI (N = 267 participants).
RESULTS: Qualitative assessments indicated comparable image quality for 3T and 7T scans. Spatial resolution was higher at higher field strength, and image quality at 1.5 T was found to be moderate to low. The proposed quantitative metrics were found to be robust to underlying changes to the SNR and contrast; however, the SNR_single method lacked accuracy when there were excessive partial-volume effects.
CONCLUSION: We propose quality assessment criteria and metrics for gray-matter visualization and apply them to different protocols. The proposed criteria and metrics, the analyzed protocols, and our open-source code can serve as a benchmark for future optimization of spinal cord gray-matter imaging protocols.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Spinal cord gray-matter imaging is valuable for a number of applications, but remains challenging. The purpose of this work was to compare various MRI protocols at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T for visualizing the gray matter.
METHODS: In vivo data of the cervical spinal cord were collected from nine different imaging centers. Data processing consisted of automatically segmenting the spinal cord and its gray matter and co-registering back-to-back scans. We computed the SNR using two methods (SNR_single using a single scan and SNR_diff using the difference between back-to-back scans) and the white/gray matter contrast-to-noise ratio per unit time. Synthetic phantom data were generated to evaluate the metrics performance. Experienced radiologists qualitatively scored the images. We ran the same processing on an open-access multicenter data set of the spinal cord MRI (N = 267 participants).
RESULTS: Qualitative assessments indicated comparable image quality for 3T and 7T scans. Spatial resolution was higher at higher field strength, and image quality at 1.5 T was found to be moderate to low. The proposed quantitative metrics were found to be robust to underlying changes to the SNR and contrast; however, the SNR_single method lacked accuracy when there were excessive partial-volume effects.
CONCLUSION: We propose quality assessment criteria and metrics for gray-matter visualization and apply them to different protocols. The proposed criteria and metrics, the analyzed protocols, and our open-source code can serve as a benchmark for future optimization of spinal cord gray-matter imaging protocols.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
3 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Balgrist University Hospital, Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Center
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Language:English
Date:1 August 2022
Deposited On:09 Jun 2022 14:31
Last Modified:23 Jun 2022 01:08
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0740-3194
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29249
PubMed ID:35476875
Full text not available from this repository.