Cited by 137Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

A validation study of multicenter diffusion tensor imaging: Reliability of fractional anisotropy and diffusivity values

Open access
Fox, R.J., Sakaie, K., Lee, J.-C., Debbins, J.P., Liu, Y., Arnold, D.L., Melhem, E.R., Smith, C.H. +3 more·2012·American Journal of Neuroradiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DTI is increasingly being used as a measure to study tissue damage in several neurologic diseases. Our aim was to investigate the comparability of DTI measures between different MR imaging magnets and platforms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two healthy volunteers underwent DTI on five 3T MR imaging scanners (3 Trios and 2 Signas) by using a matched 33 noncollinear diffusion-direction pulse sequence. Within each subject, a total of 16 white matter (corpus callosum, periventricular, and deep white matter) and gray matter (cortical and deep gray) ROIs were drawn on a single image set and then were coregistered to the other images. Mean FA, ADC, and longitudinal and transverse diffusivities were calculated within each ROI. Concordance correlations were derived by comparing ROI DTI values among each of the 5 magnets. RESULTS: Mean concordance for FA was 0.96; for both longitudinal and transverse diffusivities, it was 0.93; and for ADC, it was 0.88. Mean scan-rescan concordance was 0.96-0.97 for all DTI measures. Concordance correlations within platforms were, in general, better than those between platforms for all DTI measures (mean concordance of 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a 3T magnet and high-angular-resolution pulse sequence yielded comparable DTI measurements across different MR imaging magnets and platforms. Our results indicate that FA is the most comparable measure across magnets, followed by individual diffusivities. The comparability of DTI measures between different magnets supports the feasibility of multicentered clinical trials by using DTI as an outcome measure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3174/ajnr.a2844

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies with this dataset have pointed out that scanner variability is negligible.

    “Although two different scanners were used (Siemens model Trio; scanner 1 = 285 subjects, 95.6 %; and scanner 2 = 13 subjects, 4.4 %), previous studies with this dataset have pointed out that this variability is negligible (Dickerson et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2012; Melzer et al., 2020; Noble et al., 2017a; Noble et al., 2017b; Zhou et al., 2018).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bammer R, Augustin M, Strasser-Fuchs S, et al. Magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging for characterizing diffuse and focal white matter abnormali- ties in multiple sclerosis. Magn Reson Med 2000;44:583-91

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fox, R. J., Sakaie, K., Lee, J.-C., Debbins, J. P., Liu, Y., Arnold, D. L., Melhem, E. R., Smith, C. H., Philips, M. D., Lowe, M., & Fisher, E.
Affiliations
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Fox, R.J.
Venue
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published
2011-12-15
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
695-700
ISSN
  • 0195-6108 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-959X
OpenAlex
W2321691898
Cited by
137
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • American Journal of Neuroradiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • Biogen
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Genentech
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23 NS 47211, K23NS047211)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
diffusion tensor imaging, fractional anisotropy, apparent diffusion coefficient, inter-scanner reproducibility, white matter, gray matter, high angular resolution diffusion MRI, 3T MRI
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Equipment Design, Humans, Image Enhancement, Male, Ohio, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Anisotropy, Equipment Failure Analysis, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review