回复给编辑的信

IF 11.1 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Huijun Chen, Ziming Xu
{"title":"回复给编辑的信","authors":"Huijun Chen,&nbsp;Ziming Xu","doi":"10.1002/alz.70686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>We appreciate the compliment of our effort from Backes et al. and their meaningful thoughts regarding the possible explanations of the results. In our study, the clinical constraints forced us to use a dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) protocol with shorter duration, especially the high possibility of severely declined image quality due to the limited tolerance to long scans for elderly participants (average age &gt; 70 years). To fulfill the aim of our study, whole brain coverage and relatively high spatial resolution were chosen, resulting in a temporal resolution of 11.7 s, better than a commonly used protocol<span><sup>1</sup></span> (15.4 s) investigating subtle leakage.</p><p>We understand the concern of vascular transit effects. However, the sampling rate of our data precludes the possibility of performing the suggested deconvolution, since “a high sample rate is of paramount importance”<span><sup>2</sup></span> for deconvolution and only “time resolution between 1 and 2 s is acceptable.”<span><sup>2</sup></span> The reason is that the first pass (especially the peak) of the time courses, when the vascular transit effects are mostly obvious but still subtle, can hardly be well captured with a 5 times lower sampling rate than needed, given the reported similar arterial transit time (ATT)<span><sup>3</sup></span> and slightly prolonged mean transit time (MTT) (1–2 s)<span><sup>4</sup></span> compared with aged controls. Due to the same reason, those transit effects, which were buried in the variance introduced by low-rate sampling, should not systematically affect the results. Our study showed increased blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability similar to that in a previous study,<span><sup>1</sup></span> which omitted transit effects with long duration, also supporting the effectiveness of our protocol. Moreover, a previous study<span><sup>5</sup></span> investigating water exchange in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with subtle BBB leakage scenarios using only 115 s duration also ignored the transit effects. Notably, even if the data have a sufficient sampling rate, differentiating coexisting leakage and transit effects is almost impossible by deconvolution, which assumes only transit effects exists. This is because the inevitably existing leakage can also mimic transit effects, thereby leading to biased estimation.</p><p>Furthermore, long duration is not always better for models neglecting contrast reflux to plasma, such as the commonly used Patlak model.<span><sup>1, 6</sup></span> Actually, the physiological feature of BBB breakdown is the passive bidirectional BBB permeability.<span><sup>7</sup></span> The bias (underestimation) introduced by neglecting reflux could be ignored with short durations but will certainly increase as duration becomes longer.<span><sup>8</sup></span> The contrast in tissue may even dissipate rather than “accumulate” when the duration becomes so long that the reflux plays a major role. Cramer and Larsson<span><sup>8</sup></span> found that long duration underestimates the permeability of MS lesions with subtle BBB leakage, whereas “this underestimation is attenuated if the measurement duration is reduced from 15 to 5 min.”<span><sup>8</sup></span> In their simulations,<span><sup>8</sup></span> compared with 15 min duration, the mean permeability values of 5 min duration using the Patlak model were comparable to, sometimes even closer to the ground truth under low leakage scenarios. Thus, an alternative interpretation of the decreasing leakage rate for increasing durations, reported by Wong et al.,<span><sup>6</sup></span> is that the leakage rates were more severely underestimated along with longer durations. Consequently, the “adjusted coefficient of variation (CV)”<span><sup>6</sup></span> considering the leakage rate estimated from 25 min duration data as reference, may actually severely overestimate the variance for short durations. Nevertheless, if the high possibility of a much poorer image in long-duration scans is not considered, we do agree that long duration would have better reproducibility or smaller standard deviation (SD) than short duration, because long duration yields more sampling points, which is always preferable in mathematical fitting. However, minimizing systemic bias is generally prioritized in most studies, and the variance can be mitigated by larger sample size or region of interest (ROI) averaging. <span><sup>1</sup></span>We acknowledge that further optimization should be done to find the best protocol with both minimal bias and good reproducibility if subject compliance can be improved. But this optimization will always be a tradeoff among imaging coverage, spatial resolution, temporal resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), model assumption, patient tolerance, and even ethical concerns. If by any chance a shorter protocol can be used, it would benefit the research and application of sophisticated techniques for BBB leakage quantification.</p><p>The “curvilinear structures” in the <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup> map should be large vessels and can also be found in a study using long-duration scan.<span><sup>1</sup></span> These structures were excluded in our study and would not influence the results. As for the cross-group analysis, following a precedent,<span><sup>1</sup></span> we pooled correlations across groups when the within-group sample sizes were small. We also provided group-stratified scatter plots for readers to interpret. Of note, as shown in those scatter plots, the correlation trends between <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup> and <i>k</i><sub>bo</sub> were not always negative. For example, positive correlation trend can be found for whole brain of aged healthy controls, whose vascular transit function also degraded.<span><sup>9</sup></span> This is consistant with the positive correlation found between <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup> estimated from long-duration DCE-MRI and water exchange rate estimated from arterial spin labeling imaging in a previous study.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>The authors have nothing to report. Author disclosures are available in the supporting information.</p>","PeriodicalId":7471,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's & Dementia","volume":"21 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alz.70686","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to letter to the editor\",\"authors\":\"Huijun Chen,&nbsp;Ziming Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/alz.70686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>We appreciate the compliment of our effort from Backes et al. and their meaningful thoughts regarding the possible explanations of the results. In our study, the clinical constraints forced us to use a dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) protocol with shorter duration, especially the high possibility of severely declined image quality due to the limited tolerance to long scans for elderly participants (average age &gt; 70 years). To fulfill the aim of our study, whole brain coverage and relatively high spatial resolution were chosen, resulting in a temporal resolution of 11.7 s, better than a commonly used protocol<span><sup>1</sup></span> (15.4 s) investigating subtle leakage.</p><p>We understand the concern of vascular transit effects. However, the sampling rate of our data precludes the possibility of performing the suggested deconvolution, since “a high sample rate is of paramount importance”<span><sup>2</sup></span> for deconvolution and only “time resolution between 1 and 2 s is acceptable.”<span><sup>2</sup></span> The reason is that the first pass (especially the peak) of the time courses, when the vascular transit effects are mostly obvious but still subtle, can hardly be well captured with a 5 times lower sampling rate than needed, given the reported similar arterial transit time (ATT)<span><sup>3</sup></span> and slightly prolonged mean transit time (MTT) (1–2 s)<span><sup>4</sup></span> compared with aged controls. Due to the same reason, those transit effects, which were buried in the variance introduced by low-rate sampling, should not systematically affect the results. Our study showed increased blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability similar to that in a previous study,<span><sup>1</sup></span> which omitted transit effects with long duration, also supporting the effectiveness of our protocol. Moreover, a previous study<span><sup>5</sup></span> investigating water exchange in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with subtle BBB leakage scenarios using only 115 s duration also ignored the transit effects. Notably, even if the data have a sufficient sampling rate, differentiating coexisting leakage and transit effects is almost impossible by deconvolution, which assumes only transit effects exists. This is because the inevitably existing leakage can also mimic transit effects, thereby leading to biased estimation.</p><p>Furthermore, long duration is not always better for models neglecting contrast reflux to plasma, such as the commonly used Patlak model.<span><sup>1, 6</sup></span> Actually, the physiological feature of BBB breakdown is the passive bidirectional BBB permeability.<span><sup>7</sup></span> The bias (underestimation) introduced by neglecting reflux could be ignored with short durations but will certainly increase as duration becomes longer.<span><sup>8</sup></span> The contrast in tissue may even dissipate rather than “accumulate” when the duration becomes so long that the reflux plays a major role. Cramer and Larsson<span><sup>8</sup></span> found that long duration underestimates the permeability of MS lesions with subtle BBB leakage, whereas “this underestimation is attenuated if the measurement duration is reduced from 15 to 5 min.”<span><sup>8</sup></span> In their simulations,<span><sup>8</sup></span> compared with 15 min duration, the mean permeability values of 5 min duration using the Patlak model were comparable to, sometimes even closer to the ground truth under low leakage scenarios. Thus, an alternative interpretation of the decreasing leakage rate for increasing durations, reported by Wong et al.,<span><sup>6</sup></span> is that the leakage rates were more severely underestimated along with longer durations. Consequently, the “adjusted coefficient of variation (CV)”<span><sup>6</sup></span> considering the leakage rate estimated from 25 min duration data as reference, may actually severely overestimate the variance for short durations. Nevertheless, if the high possibility of a much poorer image in long-duration scans is not considered, we do agree that long duration would have better reproducibility or smaller standard deviation (SD) than short duration, because long duration yields more sampling points, which is always preferable in mathematical fitting. However, minimizing systemic bias is generally prioritized in most studies, and the variance can be mitigated by larger sample size or region of interest (ROI) averaging. <span><sup>1</sup></span>We acknowledge that further optimization should be done to find the best protocol with both minimal bias and good reproducibility if subject compliance can be improved. But this optimization will always be a tradeoff among imaging coverage, spatial resolution, temporal resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), model assumption, patient tolerance, and even ethical concerns. If by any chance a shorter protocol can be used, it would benefit the research and application of sophisticated techniques for BBB leakage quantification.</p><p>The “curvilinear structures” in the <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup> map should be large vessels and can also be found in a study using long-duration scan.<span><sup>1</sup></span> These structures were excluded in our study and would not influence the results. As for the cross-group analysis, following a precedent,<span><sup>1</sup></span> we pooled correlations across groups when the within-group sample sizes were small. We also provided group-stratified scatter plots for readers to interpret. Of note, as shown in those scatter plots, the correlation trends between <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup> and <i>k</i><sub>bo</sub> were not always negative. For example, positive correlation trend can be found for whole brain of aged healthy controls, whose vascular transit function also degraded.<span><sup>9</sup></span> This is consistant with the positive correlation found between <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup> estimated from long-duration DCE-MRI and water exchange rate estimated from arterial spin labeling imaging in a previous study.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>The authors have nothing to report. Author disclosures are available in the supporting information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer's & Dementia\",\"volume\":\"21 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alz.70686\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer's & Dementia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.70686\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's & Dementia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.70686","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尊敬的编辑:我们非常感谢Backes等人对我们的努力的赞赏,以及他们对结果可能解释的有意义的想法。在我们的研究中,临床限制迫使我们使用持续时间较短的动态对比增强磁共振成像(DCE-MRI)方案,特别是由于老年参与者(平均年龄&gt; 70岁)对长时间扫描的耐受性有限,图像质量严重下降的可能性很大。为了实现我们的研究目标,我们选择了全脑覆盖和相对较高的空间分辨率,结果时间分辨率为11.7 s,优于用于研究细微泄漏的常用方案1 (15.4 s)。我们理解对血管转运效应的关注。然而,我们数据的采样率排除了执行建议的反褶积的可能性,因为“高采样率至关重要”2对于反褶积来说,只有“1到2秒之间的时间分辨率是可以接受的”。2原因是,当血管传递效应最明显但仍很微妙时,由于报告的动脉传递时间(ATT)相似,平均传递时间(MTT)略延长(1-2秒)4,因此很难用比所需采样率低5倍的采样率很好地捕获血管传递过程的第一次传递(特别是峰值)。由于同样的原因,那些被低速率采样引入的方差所掩盖的过境效应,不应该系统性地影响结果。我们的研究显示血脑屏障(BBB)通透性增加,与之前的研究相似,1忽略了持续时间较长的转运效应,也支持了我们方案的有效性。此外,先前的一项研究仅用115 s的时间研究了伴有轻度血脑屏障渗漏的多发性硬化症(MS)患者的水交换,也忽略了转运效应。值得注意的是,即使数据具有足够的采样率,通过反褶积来区分共存的泄漏和过境效应几乎是不可能的,因为反褶积假设只有过境效应存在。这是因为不可避免地存在的泄漏也可以模拟过境效应,从而导致有偏差的估计。此外,对于忽略对比剂返流到血浆的模型,如常用的Patlak模型,持续时间长并不总是更好。实际上,血脑屏障破坏的生理特征是被动的双向血脑屏障通透性由于忽视反流引起的偏差(低估)在短时间内可以忽略,但随着持续时间的延长,偏差(低估)肯定会增加当持续时间长到反流起主要作用时,组织中的造影剂甚至可能消散而不是“积聚”。Cramer和Larsson8发现,长时间低估了伴有轻微血脑屏障渗漏的MS病变的渗透率,而“如果测量时间从15分钟减少到5分钟,这种低估就会减弱。”8在他们的模拟中,8与15分钟的持续时间相比,使用Patlak模型的5分钟持续时间的平均渗透率值与低泄漏情况下的真实值相当,有时甚至更接近真实值。因此,Wong等人6报道的泄漏率随持续时间的增加而下降的另一种解释是,随着持续时间的延长,泄漏率被严重低估。因此,考虑到从25分钟持续时间数据中估计的泄漏率,“调整后的变异系数(CV)”6实际上可能严重高估了短持续时间的方差。然而,如果不考虑长时间扫描中较差图像的高可能性,我们确实同意长时间扫描比短时间扫描具有更好的再现性或更小的标准偏差(SD),因为长时间扫描产生更多的采样点,这在数学拟合中总是可取的。然而,在大多数研究中,最小化系统偏差通常是优先考虑的,方差可以通过更大的样本量或兴趣区域(ROI)平均来减轻。我们承认,如果受试者依从性可以提高,还需要进一步优化,以找到偏差最小、可重复性好的最佳方案。但这种优化总是需要在成像覆盖、空间分辨率、时间分辨率、信噪比(SNR)、模型假设、患者容忍度甚至伦理问题之间进行权衡。如果有可能使用更短的协议,将有利于复杂的血脑屏障泄漏量化技术的研究和应用。Ktrans图中的“曲线结构”应该是大血管,也可以在使用长时间扫描的研究中发现这些结构在我们的研究中被排除,不会影响结果。至于跨组分析,遵循先例1,当组内样本量较小时,我们汇总了组间的相关性。 我们还提供了群体分层散点图供读者解释。值得注意的是,从这些散点图中可以看出,Ktrans和kbo之间的相关趋势并不总是负的。如老龄健康对照者全脑存在正相关趋势,其血管转运功能也出现退化这与之前的一项研究中发现的长时间DCE-MRI估计的Ktrans与动脉自旋标记成像估计的水交换率呈正相关。作者没有什么可报告的。作者披露可在支持信息中获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Response to letter to the editor

Response to letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

We appreciate the compliment of our effort from Backes et al. and their meaningful thoughts regarding the possible explanations of the results. In our study, the clinical constraints forced us to use a dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) protocol with shorter duration, especially the high possibility of severely declined image quality due to the limited tolerance to long scans for elderly participants (average age > 70 years). To fulfill the aim of our study, whole brain coverage and relatively high spatial resolution were chosen, resulting in a temporal resolution of 11.7 s, better than a commonly used protocol1 (15.4 s) investigating subtle leakage.

We understand the concern of vascular transit effects. However, the sampling rate of our data precludes the possibility of performing the suggested deconvolution, since “a high sample rate is of paramount importance”2 for deconvolution and only “time resolution between 1 and 2 s is acceptable.”2 The reason is that the first pass (especially the peak) of the time courses, when the vascular transit effects are mostly obvious but still subtle, can hardly be well captured with a 5 times lower sampling rate than needed, given the reported similar arterial transit time (ATT)3 and slightly prolonged mean transit time (MTT) (1–2 s)4 compared with aged controls. Due to the same reason, those transit effects, which were buried in the variance introduced by low-rate sampling, should not systematically affect the results. Our study showed increased blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability similar to that in a previous study,1 which omitted transit effects with long duration, also supporting the effectiveness of our protocol. Moreover, a previous study5 investigating water exchange in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with subtle BBB leakage scenarios using only 115 s duration also ignored the transit effects. Notably, even if the data have a sufficient sampling rate, differentiating coexisting leakage and transit effects is almost impossible by deconvolution, which assumes only transit effects exists. This is because the inevitably existing leakage can also mimic transit effects, thereby leading to biased estimation.

Furthermore, long duration is not always better for models neglecting contrast reflux to plasma, such as the commonly used Patlak model.1, 6 Actually, the physiological feature of BBB breakdown is the passive bidirectional BBB permeability.7 The bias (underestimation) introduced by neglecting reflux could be ignored with short durations but will certainly increase as duration becomes longer.8 The contrast in tissue may even dissipate rather than “accumulate” when the duration becomes so long that the reflux plays a major role. Cramer and Larsson8 found that long duration underestimates the permeability of MS lesions with subtle BBB leakage, whereas “this underestimation is attenuated if the measurement duration is reduced from 15 to 5 min.”8 In their simulations,8 compared with 15 min duration, the mean permeability values of 5 min duration using the Patlak model were comparable to, sometimes even closer to the ground truth under low leakage scenarios. Thus, an alternative interpretation of the decreasing leakage rate for increasing durations, reported by Wong et al.,6 is that the leakage rates were more severely underestimated along with longer durations. Consequently, the “adjusted coefficient of variation (CV)”6 considering the leakage rate estimated from 25 min duration data as reference, may actually severely overestimate the variance for short durations. Nevertheless, if the high possibility of a much poorer image in long-duration scans is not considered, we do agree that long duration would have better reproducibility or smaller standard deviation (SD) than short duration, because long duration yields more sampling points, which is always preferable in mathematical fitting. However, minimizing systemic bias is generally prioritized in most studies, and the variance can be mitigated by larger sample size or region of interest (ROI) averaging. 1We acknowledge that further optimization should be done to find the best protocol with both minimal bias and good reproducibility if subject compliance can be improved. But this optimization will always be a tradeoff among imaging coverage, spatial resolution, temporal resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), model assumption, patient tolerance, and even ethical concerns. If by any chance a shorter protocol can be used, it would benefit the research and application of sophisticated techniques for BBB leakage quantification.

The “curvilinear structures” in the Ktrans map should be large vessels and can also be found in a study using long-duration scan.1 These structures were excluded in our study and would not influence the results. As for the cross-group analysis, following a precedent,1 we pooled correlations across groups when the within-group sample sizes were small. We also provided group-stratified scatter plots for readers to interpret. Of note, as shown in those scatter plots, the correlation trends between Ktrans and kbo were not always negative. For example, positive correlation trend can be found for whole brain of aged healthy controls, whose vascular transit function also degraded.9 This is consistant with the positive correlation found between Ktrans estimated from long-duration DCE-MRI and water exchange rate estimated from arterial spin labeling imaging in a previous study.10

The authors have nothing to report. Author disclosures are available in the supporting information.

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
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Alzheimer's & Dementia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
299
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Alzheimer's & Dementia is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to bridge knowledge gaps in dementia research by covering the entire spectrum, from basic science to clinical trials to social and behavioral investigations. It provides a platform for rapid communication of new findings and ideas, optimal translation of research into practical applications, increasing knowledge across diverse disciplines for early detection, diagnosis, and intervention, and identifying promising new research directions. In July 2008, Alzheimer's & Dementia was accepted for indexing by MEDLINE, recognizing its scientific merit and contribution to Alzheimer's research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信