Carlos Dier, Sultan Alhajahjeh, Abdallah A Alqudah, Andres Gudino, Navami Shenoy, Martin A Cabarique, Elena Sagues, Sebastian Sanchez, Connor Aamot, Linder Wendt, Bruno A Policeni, Minako Hayakawa, Edgar A Samaniego
{"title":"7t血管壁MRI上动脉粥样硬化斑块增强的可靠性:与定量分析的比较。","authors":"Carlos Dier, Sultan Alhajahjeh, Abdallah A Alqudah, Andres Gudino, Navami Shenoy, Martin A Cabarique, Elena Sagues, Sebastian Sanchez, Connor Aamot, Linder Wendt, Bruno A Policeni, Minako Hayakawa, Edgar A Samaniego","doi":"10.1177/15910199251368719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveIntracranial plaque enhancement (IPE) is a potential biomarker of plaque vulnerability but lacks a standardized definition. While subjective assessment may be prone to observer variability, a voxel-based quantification method can detect subtle signal intensity (SI) changes. This study aimed to compare the inter-rater reliability of subjective IPE evaluation with that of a voxel-based quantification method.MethodsPatients with stroke due to intracranial atherosclerosis were prospectively imaged using 7 T vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging. Two adjudicators independently assessed IPE, with discrepancies resolved by a third, experienced neuroradiologist. IPE distribution was quantified using a semiautomated method based on SI measurements from post-contrast T1-weighted images. The mean enhancement ratio was calculated for each plaque to assess gadolinium enhancement. Inter-rater reproducibility and the concordance between subjective and objective assessments were evaluated. Regression analysis was performed to identify plaque morphological features that influenced the reliability of subjective IPE adjudication compared to the objective method.ResultsWe analyzed 75 plaques from 41 patients. Inter-rater agreement for IPE adjudication was poor (<i>κ</i> = 0.34). Following consensus, 43% of plaques (32/75) were classified as enhancing, whereas 57% (43/75) were non-enhancing. The agreement between subjective and objective IPE assessments was moderate (<i>κ</i> = 0.40, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Subjective assessment was more likely to reliably adjudicate IPE for plaques exhibiting >50% stenosis (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; <i>p</i> = 0.02) and a positive remodeling index (OR, 2.20; <i>p</i> = 0.02). In contrast, it was less reliable when evaluating posterior circulation plaques (OR, 0.23; <i>p</i> = 0.01).ConclusionSubjective assessment of IPE demonstrated poor inter-rater agreement and only moderate concordance with voxel-based quantification following consensus.</p>","PeriodicalId":49174,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":"15910199251368719"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12375601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-rater reliability of atherosclerotic plaque enhancement on 7 T vessel wall MRI: Comparison with quantitative analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Dier, Sultan Alhajahjeh, Abdallah A Alqudah, Andres Gudino, Navami Shenoy, Martin A Cabarique, Elena Sagues, Sebastian Sanchez, Connor Aamot, Linder Wendt, Bruno A Policeni, Minako Hayakawa, Edgar A Samaniego\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15910199251368719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveIntracranial plaque enhancement (IPE) is a potential biomarker of plaque vulnerability but lacks a standardized definition. While subjective assessment may be prone to observer variability, a voxel-based quantification method can detect subtle signal intensity (SI) changes. This study aimed to compare the inter-rater reliability of subjective IPE evaluation with that of a voxel-based quantification method.MethodsPatients with stroke due to intracranial atherosclerosis were prospectively imaged using 7 T vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging. Two adjudicators independently assessed IPE, with discrepancies resolved by a third, experienced neuroradiologist. IPE distribution was quantified using a semiautomated method based on SI measurements from post-contrast T1-weighted images. The mean enhancement ratio was calculated for each plaque to assess gadolinium enhancement. Inter-rater reproducibility and the concordance between subjective and objective assessments were evaluated. Regression analysis was performed to identify plaque morphological features that influenced the reliability of subjective IPE adjudication compared to the objective method.ResultsWe analyzed 75 plaques from 41 patients. Inter-rater agreement for IPE adjudication was poor (<i>κ</i> = 0.34). Following consensus, 43% of plaques (32/75) were classified as enhancing, whereas 57% (43/75) were non-enhancing. The agreement between subjective and objective IPE assessments was moderate (<i>κ</i> = 0.40, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Subjective assessment was more likely to reliably adjudicate IPE for plaques exhibiting >50% stenosis (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; <i>p</i> = 0.02) and a positive remodeling index (OR, 2.20; <i>p</i> = 0.02). In contrast, it was less reliable when evaluating posterior circulation plaques (OR, 0.23; <i>p</i> = 0.01).ConclusionSubjective assessment of IPE demonstrated poor inter-rater agreement and only moderate concordance with voxel-based quantification following consensus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15910199251368719\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12375601/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199251368719\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199251368719","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的颅内斑块增强(IPE)是斑块易损性的潜在生物标志物,但缺乏标准化的定义。虽然主观评估可能容易受到观察者变化的影响,但基于体素的量化方法可以检测到细微的信号强度(SI)变化。本研究旨在比较主观IPE评估与基于体素的量化方法的评分间可靠性。方法采用7t血管壁磁共振成像对颅内动脉粥样硬化所致脑卒中患者进行前瞻性成像。两名评审独立评估IPE,差异由第三名经验丰富的神经放射学家解决。使用基于对比后t1加权图像SI测量的半自动方法量化IPE分布。计算每个斑块的平均增强比来评估钆增强。评价了评价间的可重复性和主观评价与客观评价的一致性。进行回归分析,以确定与客观方法相比,影响主观IPE判定可靠性的斑块形态学特征。结果我们分析了41例患者的75个斑块。评价者对IPE裁决的一致性较差(κ = 0.34)。根据共识,43%的斑块(32/75)被分类为增强斑块,57%(43/75)被分类为非增强斑块。主观和客观IPE评估之间的一致性为中等(κ = 0.40, p 50%狭窄(优势比(OR), 1.04;p = 0.02)和正重构指数(OR, 2.20; p = 0.02)。相比之下,评估后循环斑块的可靠性较差(OR, 0.23; p = 0.01)。结论IPE主观评价的一致性较差,与基于体素的量化评价的一致性较弱。
Inter-rater reliability of atherosclerotic plaque enhancement on 7 T vessel wall MRI: Comparison with quantitative analysis.
ObjectiveIntracranial plaque enhancement (IPE) is a potential biomarker of plaque vulnerability but lacks a standardized definition. While subjective assessment may be prone to observer variability, a voxel-based quantification method can detect subtle signal intensity (SI) changes. This study aimed to compare the inter-rater reliability of subjective IPE evaluation with that of a voxel-based quantification method.MethodsPatients with stroke due to intracranial atherosclerosis were prospectively imaged using 7 T vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging. Two adjudicators independently assessed IPE, with discrepancies resolved by a third, experienced neuroradiologist. IPE distribution was quantified using a semiautomated method based on SI measurements from post-contrast T1-weighted images. The mean enhancement ratio was calculated for each plaque to assess gadolinium enhancement. Inter-rater reproducibility and the concordance between subjective and objective assessments were evaluated. Regression analysis was performed to identify plaque morphological features that influenced the reliability of subjective IPE adjudication compared to the objective method.ResultsWe analyzed 75 plaques from 41 patients. Inter-rater agreement for IPE adjudication was poor (κ = 0.34). Following consensus, 43% of plaques (32/75) were classified as enhancing, whereas 57% (43/75) were non-enhancing. The agreement between subjective and objective IPE assessments was moderate (κ = 0.40, p < 0.001). Subjective assessment was more likely to reliably adjudicate IPE for plaques exhibiting >50% stenosis (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; p = 0.02) and a positive remodeling index (OR, 2.20; p = 0.02). In contrast, it was less reliable when evaluating posterior circulation plaques (OR, 0.23; p = 0.01).ConclusionSubjective assessment of IPE demonstrated poor inter-rater agreement and only moderate concordance with voxel-based quantification following consensus.
期刊介绍:
Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...