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。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:验证室温下使用QIBA/NIST扩散MRI模体测量多位点和多供应商ADC的有效性。材料和方法:ADC测量在三个供应商在五个地点的12台扫描仪上进行(均匀分布在1.5和3t之间),并在室温下比较参考值。采用Pearson相关系数(r)和精度误差与参考值比较;扫描器内变异系数(CVintra%)表示会话内的可重复性,扫描器间的一致性(CVinter%);短期重现性的Bland-Altman图和精度误差;广义线性混合模型和事后检验(α =0.05)比较不同场强、供应商和扫描仪的准确性、可重复性和精密度。结果:温度调节adc与NIST参考值相关性良好(1.5 T时r≥0.997,3 T时r≥0.996)。所有扫描仪的中位精度误差均低于5%。在肾脏生理范围内(ADC > 0.83 × 10-3 mm2/s),准确度误差在内部。讨论:尽管使用腹部接收线圈和室温测量,但所有定量参数均在文献发现范围内。在肾脏生理范围内的高精度、可重复性和精密度支持了在肾脏研究中使用QIBA标准化流程进行弥散测量的扫描仪评估的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 ( α =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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信