Skip to main content

Influence of analysis technique on measurement of diffusion tensor imaging parameters.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Urger, E; Debellis, MD; Hooper, SR; Woolley, DP; Chen, S; Provenzale, JM
Published in: AJR Am J Roentgenol
May 2013

OBJECTIVE: We compared results from various methods of analysis of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data from a single dataset consisting of 10 healthy adolescents. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All subjects were imaged on a single 3-T MRI system (single-shot echo-planar imaging pulse sequence; b value, 1000 s/mm(2)). We measured fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and axial and radial diffusivity values using 64-pixel rectangular regions of interest (ROIs) in the right side, midline, and left side of the central portion of the splenium of the corpus callosum for fixed (i.e., at same sites in all subjects) and targeted (i.e., at sites of highest FA values) locations. We compared results with those obtained using 64-pixel oval ROIs and 100-pixel rectangular ROIs in the same locations. Finally, we compared results from ROI-based methods and from tractography. All comparisons used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the intraclass correlation of individual values. RESULTS: Compared to tractography, the average of mean ROI-based values was significantly higher for fixed (approximately 14%) and targeted (approximately 39%) FA values and was significantly lower for ADC (approximately 16%) and radial diffusivity (approximately 38%) values. For solely ROI-based comparisons, statistically significant differences were found in the following comparisons: 64- versus 100-pixel ROI, oval versus rectangular ROI, targeted FA left of midline versus mean targeted FA value, and targeted ROI right of midline versus mean targeted FA value. CONCLUSION: Markedly different values were obtained when using either ROI- or tractography-based techniques or ROI analysis techniques that differ only relatively slightly.

Duke Scholars

Published In

AJR Am J Roentgenol

DOI

EISSN

1546-3141

Publication Date

May 2013

Volume

200

Issue

5

Start / End Page

W510 / W517

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • Nerve Fibers, Myelinated
  • Male
  • Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
  • Image Enhancement
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Diffusion Tensor Imaging
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Urger, E., Debellis, M. D., Hooper, S. R., Woolley, D. P., Chen, S., & Provenzale, J. M. (2013). Influence of analysis technique on measurement of diffusion tensor imaging parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 200(5), W510–W517. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9650
Urger, Efsun, Michael D. Debellis, Steven R. Hooper, Donald P. Woolley, Steven Chen, and James M. Provenzale. “Influence of analysis technique on measurement of diffusion tensor imaging parameters.AJR Am J Roentgenol 200, no. 5 (May 2013): W510–17. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9650.
Urger E, Debellis MD, Hooper SR, Woolley DP, Chen S, Provenzale JM. Influence of analysis technique on measurement of diffusion tensor imaging parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 May;200(5):W510–7.
Urger, Efsun, et al. “Influence of analysis technique on measurement of diffusion tensor imaging parameters.AJR Am J Roentgenol, vol. 200, no. 5, May 2013, pp. W510–17. Pubmed, doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9650.
Urger E, Debellis MD, Hooper SR, Woolley DP, Chen S, Provenzale JM. Influence of analysis technique on measurement of diffusion tensor imaging parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 May;200(5):W510–W517.

Published In

AJR Am J Roentgenol

DOI

EISSN

1546-3141

Publication Date

May 2013

Volume

200

Issue

5

Start / End Page

W510 / W517

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • Nerve Fibers, Myelinated
  • Male
  • Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
  • Image Enhancement
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Diffusion Tensor Imaging