Siria Pasini, Steffen Ringgaard, Tau Vendelboe, Leyre Garcia-Ruiz, Anika Strittmatter, Giulia Villa, Anish Raj, Rebeca Echeverria-Chasco, Michela Bozzetto, Paolo Brambilla, Malene Aastrup, Esben S S Hansen, Luisa Pierotti, Matteo Renzulli, Susan T Francis, Frank G Zoellner, Christoffer Laustsen, Maria A Fernandez-Seara, Anna Caroli
{"title":"跨1.5 T和3t扫描仪的多中心和多供应商评估研究(第1部分):扩散MRI幻影中的表观扩散系数标准化。","authors":"Siria Pasini, Steffen Ringgaard, Tau Vendelboe, Leyre Garcia-Ruiz, Anika Strittmatter, Giulia Villa, Anish Raj, Rebeca Echeverria-Chasco, Michela Bozzetto, Paolo Brambilla, Malene Aastrup, Esben S S Hansen, Luisa Pierotti, Matteo Renzulli, Susan T Francis, Frank G Zoellner, Christoffer Laustsen, Maria A Fernandez-Seara, Anna Caroli","doi":"10.1007/s10334-025-01256-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To validate multi-site and multi-vendor ADC measurements using the QIBA/NIST diffusion MRI phantom at room temperature.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>ADC measurements were performed on 12 scanners (evenly split between 1.5 and 3 T) from three vendors at five sites and compared with reference values at room temperature. We adopted Pearson's correlation (r) and accuracy error for comparison with reference values; within scanner coefficient of variation (CV<sub>intra</sub>%) for intra-session repeatability and inter-scanner for agreement (CV<sub>inter</sub>%); Bland-Altman plots and precision error for short-term reproducibility; generalized linear mixed models and post-hoc tests ( <math><mi>α</mi></math> =0.05) to compare accuracy, repeatability and precision across field strengths, vendors, and scanners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Temperature adjusted ADCs were well correlated with NIST reference values (r <math><mo>≥</mo></math> 0.997 for 1.5 T, r <math><mo>≥</mo></math> 0.996 for 3 T). Median accuracy error was lower than 5% for all scanners. In the renal physiologic range (ADC > 0.83 <math><mo>×</mo></math> 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s), accuracy error was < 10% and CV<sub>intra</sub> < 2%. Across all scanners, good short-term reproducibility with limits of agreement < 10% and excellent agreement (median CV<sub>inter</sub> < 2%) were found.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite using abdominal receive coils and room temperature measurements, all quantitative parameters were within literature findings. High accuracy, repeatability and precision within the renal physiologic range support the feasibility of scanner evaluation using QIBA standardization process for diffusion measurements in renal studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":18067,"journal":{"name":"Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-center and multi-vendor evaluation study across 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (part 1): apparent diffusion coefficient standardization in a diffusion MRI phantom.\",\"authors\":\"Siria Pasini, Steffen Ringgaard, Tau Vendelboe, Leyre Garcia-Ruiz, Anika Strittmatter, Giulia Villa, Anish Raj, Rebeca Echeverria-Chasco, Michela Bozzetto, Paolo Brambilla, Malene Aastrup, Esben S S Hansen, Luisa Pierotti, Matteo Renzulli, Susan T Francis, Frank G Zoellner, Christoffer Laustsen, Maria A Fernandez-Seara, Anna Caroli\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10334-025-01256-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To validate multi-site and multi-vendor ADC measurements using the QIBA/NIST diffusion MRI phantom at room temperature.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>ADC measurements were performed on 12 scanners (evenly split between 1.5 and 3 T) from three vendors at five sites and compared with reference values at room temperature. We adopted Pearson's correlation (r) and accuracy error for comparison with reference values; within scanner coefficient of variation (CV<sub>intra</sub>%) for intra-session repeatability and inter-scanner for agreement (CV<sub>inter</sub>%); Bland-Altman plots and precision error for short-term reproducibility; generalized linear mixed models and post-hoc tests ( <math><mi>α</mi></math> =0.05) to compare accuracy, repeatability and precision across field strengths, vendors, and scanners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Temperature adjusted ADCs were well correlated with NIST reference values (r <math><mo>≥</mo></math> 0.997 for 1.5 T, r <math><mo>≥</mo></math> 0.996 for 3 T). Median accuracy error was lower than 5% for all scanners. In the renal physiologic range (ADC > 0.83 <math><mo>×</mo></math> 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s), accuracy error was < 10% and CV<sub>intra</sub> < 2%. Across all scanners, good short-term reproducibility with limits of agreement < 10% and excellent agreement (median CV<sub>inter</sub> < 2%) were found.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite using abdominal receive coils and room temperature measurements, all quantitative parameters were within literature findings. High accuracy, repeatability and precision within the renal physiologic range support the feasibility of scanner evaluation using QIBA standardization process for diffusion measurements in renal studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-025-01256-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-025-01256-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Multi-center and multi-vendor evaluation study across 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (part 1): apparent diffusion coefficient standardization in a diffusion MRI phantom.
Objective: To validate multi-site and multi-vendor ADC measurements using the QIBA/NIST diffusion MRI phantom at room temperature.
Materials and methods: ADC measurements were performed on 12 scanners (evenly split between 1.5 and 3 T) from three vendors at five sites and compared with reference values at room temperature. We adopted Pearson's correlation (r) and accuracy error for comparison with reference values; within scanner coefficient of variation (CVintra%) for intra-session repeatability and inter-scanner for agreement (CVinter%); Bland-Altman plots and precision error for short-term reproducibility; generalized linear mixed models and post-hoc tests ( =0.05) to compare accuracy, repeatability and precision across field strengths, vendors, and scanners.
Results: Temperature adjusted ADCs were well correlated with NIST reference values (r 0.997 for 1.5 T, r 0.996 for 3 T). Median accuracy error was lower than 5% for all scanners. In the renal physiologic range (ADC > 0.83 10-3 mm2/s), accuracy error was < 10% and CVintra < 2%. Across all scanners, good short-term reproducibility with limits of agreement < 10% and excellent agreement (median CVinter < 2%) were found.
Discussion: Despite using abdominal receive coils and room temperature measurements, all quantitative parameters were within literature findings. High accuracy, repeatability and precision within the renal physiologic range support the feasibility of scanner evaluation using QIBA standardization process for diffusion measurements in renal studies.
期刊介绍:
MAGMA is a multidisciplinary international journal devoted to the publication of articles on all aspects of magnetic resonance techniques and their applications in medicine and biology. MAGMA currently publishes research papers, reviews, letters to the editor, and commentaries, six times a year. The subject areas covered by MAGMA include:
advances in materials, hardware and software in magnetic resonance technology,
new developments and results in research and practical applications of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy related to biology and medicine,
study of animal models and intact cells using magnetic resonance,
reports of clinical trials on humans and clinical validation of magnetic resonance protocols.