不同弥散编码时间的刺激回波采集模式(STEAM)冈上肌弥散张量成像:测试-重复可靠性以及与自旋回波弥散张量成像的比较。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 BIOPHYSICS NMR in Biomedicine Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1002/nbm.5279
Adrian Alexander Marth, Stefan Sommer, Thorsten Feiweier, Reto Sutter, Daniel Nanz, Constantin von Deuster
{"title":"不同弥散编码时间的刺激回波采集模式(STEAM)冈上肌弥散张量成像:测试-重复可靠性以及与自旋回波弥散张量成像的比较。","authors":"Adrian Alexander Marth, Stefan Sommer, Thorsten Feiweier, Reto Sutter, Daniel Nanz, Constantin von Deuster","doi":"10.1002/nbm.5279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides insight into the skeletal muscle microstructure and can be acquired using a stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM)-based approach to quantify time-dependent tissue diffusion. This study examined diffusion metrics and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the supraspinatus muscle obtained with a STEAM-DTI sequence with different diffusion encoding times (Δ) and compared them to measures from a spin echo (SE) sequence. Ten healthy subjects (mean age 31.5 ± 4.7 years; five females) underwent 3-Tesla STEAM and SE-DTI of the shoulder in three sessions. STEAM was acquired with Δ of 100/200/400/600 ms. The diffusion encoding time in SE scans was 19 ms (b = 500 s/mm<sup>2</sup>). Region of interest-based measurement of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and SNR was performed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed to assess test-retest reliability. ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise tests was used to compare measures between different Δ of STEAM as well as STEAM and SE, respectively. FA was significantly higher (FA<sub>STEAM</sub>: 0.38-0.46 vs. FA<sub>SE</sub>: 0.26) and MD significantly lower (MD<sub>STEAM</sub>: 1.20-1.33 vs. MD<sub>SE</sub>: 1.62 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s) in STEAM compared to SE (p < 0.001, respectively). SNR was significantly higher for SE (72.3 ± 8.7) than for STEAM (p < 0.001). ICCs were excellent for FA in STEAM (≥0.911) and SE (0.960). For MD, ICCs were good for STEAM<sub>100ms-600ms</sub> (≥0.759) and SE (0.752). STEAM and SE exhibited excellent reliability for FA and good reliability for MD in the supraspinatus muscle. SNR was significantly higher in SE compared to STEAM.</p>","PeriodicalId":19309,"journal":{"name":"NMR in Biomedicine","volume":" ","pages":"e5279"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) diffusion tensor imaging with different diffusion encoding times in the supraspinatus muscle: Test-retest reliability and comparison to spin echo diffusion tensor imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Adrian Alexander Marth, Stefan Sommer, Thorsten Feiweier, Reto Sutter, Daniel Nanz, Constantin von Deuster\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nbm.5279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides insight into the skeletal muscle microstructure and can be acquired using a stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM)-based approach to quantify time-dependent tissue diffusion. This study examined diffusion metrics and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the supraspinatus muscle obtained with a STEAM-DTI sequence with different diffusion encoding times (Δ) and compared them to measures from a spin echo (SE) sequence. Ten healthy subjects (mean age 31.5 ± 4.7 years; five females) underwent 3-Tesla STEAM and SE-DTI of the shoulder in three sessions. STEAM was acquired with Δ of 100/200/400/600 ms. The diffusion encoding time in SE scans was 19 ms (b = 500 s/mm<sup>2</sup>). Region of interest-based measurement of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and SNR was performed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed to assess test-retest reliability. ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise tests was used to compare measures between different Δ of STEAM as well as STEAM and SE, respectively. FA was significantly higher (FA<sub>STEAM</sub>: 0.38-0.46 vs. FA<sub>SE</sub>: 0.26) and MD significantly lower (MD<sub>STEAM</sub>: 1.20-1.33 vs. MD<sub>SE</sub>: 1.62 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s) in STEAM compared to SE (p < 0.001, respectively). SNR was significantly higher for SE (72.3 ± 8.7) than for STEAM (p < 0.001). ICCs were excellent for FA in STEAM (≥0.911) and SE (0.960). For MD, ICCs were good for STEAM<sub>100ms-600ms</sub> (≥0.759) and SE (0.752). STEAM and SE exhibited excellent reliability for FA and good reliability for MD in the supraspinatus muscle. SNR was significantly higher in SE compared to STEAM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NMR in Biomedicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e5279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NMR in Biomedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.5279\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NMR in Biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.5279","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

弥散张量成像(DTI)有助于深入了解骨骼肌的微观结构,可采用基于刺激回波采集模式(STEAM)的方法来量化随时间变化的组织弥散。本研究考察了使用不同扩散编码时间(Δ)的 STEAM-DTI 序列获得的冈上肌扩散指标和信噪比(SNR),并将其与自旋回波(SE)序列的测量结果进行了比较。十名健康受试者(平均年龄 31.5 ± 4.7 岁;五名女性)分三次接受了肩部的 3-Tesla STEAM 和 SE-DTI 检查。STEAM的Δ为100/200/400/600 ms。SE 扫描的扩散编码时间为 19 ms(b = 500 s/mm2)。对分数各向异性(FA)、平均扩散率(MD)和信噪比进行了基于感兴趣区的测量。计算类内相关系数(ICC)以评估测试-再测试的可靠性。方差分析和事后配对检验分别用于比较 STEAM 不同 Δ 之间以及 STEAM 和 SE 之间的测量结果。与 SE(p 100ms-600ms (≥0.759) 和 SE (0.752))相比,STEAM 的 FA 明显更高(FASTEAM: 0.38-0.46 vs. FASE: 0.26),MD 明显更低(MDSTEAM: 1.20-1.33 vs. MDSE: 1.62 × 10-3 mm2/s)。STEAM 和 SE 对冈上肌的 FA 显示出极佳的可靠性,对冈上肌的 MD 显示出良好的可靠性。与 STEAM 相比,SE 的信噪比明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) diffusion tensor imaging with different diffusion encoding times in the supraspinatus muscle: Test-retest reliability and comparison to spin echo diffusion tensor imaging.

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides insight into the skeletal muscle microstructure and can be acquired using a stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM)-based approach to quantify time-dependent tissue diffusion. This study examined diffusion metrics and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the supraspinatus muscle obtained with a STEAM-DTI sequence with different diffusion encoding times (Δ) and compared them to measures from a spin echo (SE) sequence. Ten healthy subjects (mean age 31.5 ± 4.7 years; five females) underwent 3-Tesla STEAM and SE-DTI of the shoulder in three sessions. STEAM was acquired with Δ of 100/200/400/600 ms. The diffusion encoding time in SE scans was 19 ms (b = 500 s/mm2). Region of interest-based measurement of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and SNR was performed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed to assess test-retest reliability. ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise tests was used to compare measures between different Δ of STEAM as well as STEAM and SE, respectively. FA was significantly higher (FASTEAM: 0.38-0.46 vs. FASE: 0.26) and MD significantly lower (MDSTEAM: 1.20-1.33 vs. MDSE: 1.62 × 10-3 mm2/s) in STEAM compared to SE (p < 0.001, respectively). SNR was significantly higher for SE (72.3 ± 8.7) than for STEAM (p < 0.001). ICCs were excellent for FA in STEAM (≥0.911) and SE (0.960). For MD, ICCs were good for STEAM100ms-600ms (≥0.759) and SE (0.752). STEAM and SE exhibited excellent reliability for FA and good reliability for MD in the supraspinatus muscle. SNR was significantly higher in SE compared to STEAM.

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
NMR in Biomedicine
NMR in Biomedicine 医学-光谱学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.30%
发文量
209
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: NMR in Biomedicine is a journal devoted to the publication of original full-length papers, rapid communications and review articles describing the development of magnetic resonance spectroscopy or imaging methods or their use to investigate physiological, biochemical, biophysical or medical problems. Topics for submitted papers should be in one of the following general categories: (a) development of methods and instrumentation for MR of biological systems; (b) studies of normal or diseased organs, tissues or cells; (c) diagnosis or treatment of disease. Reports may cover work on patients or healthy human subjects, in vivo animal experiments, studies of isolated organs or cultured cells, analysis of tissue extracts, NMR theory, experimental techniques, or instrumentation.
期刊最新文献
The effect of fat model variation on muscle fat fraction quantification in a cross-sectional cohort. Improvement of MRS at ultra-high field using a wireless RF array. Very-long T2-weighted imaging of the non-lesional brain tissue in multiple sclerosis patients. Simultaneous whole-liver water T 1 and T 2 mapping with isotropic resolution during free-breathing. Automatic pipeline for segmentation of LV myocardium on quantitative MR T1 maps using deep learning model and computation of radial T1 and ECV values.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1