MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2070865704 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-972132

Imaging cerebrovascular reactivity using BOLD MRI at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of spiral and EPI combined with parallel imaging

2007· article· de· W2070865704 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrea Kassner, Julien Poublanc, Adrian P. Crawley

Notice bibliographique

RevueRöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren · 2007
Typearticle
Languede
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpiral (railway)Grey matterSingle shotNeuroimagingMagnetic resonance imagingPsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceRadiologyPhysicsWhite matterMathematicsOptics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose: Combining inhaled CO 2 manipulation with BOLD MRI is a promising method for assessing regional differences in cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) which is a measurement of the brains autoregulatory capacity. Since the entire grey matter in the brain responds to the CO 2 stimulus, CVR measurements provide a way to evaluate different BOLD acquisition schemes with respect to signal drop-out and distortion. Specifically we compared spiral to a single-shot EPI technique combined with parallel imaging in normal healthy subjects. Methods: Five healthy male (age range 25–42 years) volunteers were imaged on a 1.5T and 3.0T GE Signa MR system on 2 separate days using a rebreathing circuit as described previously [1]. Each subject was placed inside the scanner and the rebreathing device was applied. At each field strength, scanning was performed using a standard single-shot BOLD protocol with a spiral read out (TE=40ms, TR=2100ms, FA=85°, FOV=20mm) for run 1 and an EPI technique combined with parallel imaging (TE=40ms, TR=2100ms, FA=85°, FOV=20mm, ASSET factor=2) for run 2. Scanning duration for each run was 8 minutes for an acquisition of 230 volumes. Each volume contained 28 slices and spatial resolution of the BOLD data was approx 3×3mm with a slice thickness of 4.5mm for both techniques. In addition, high resolution T1 weighted images were acquired for co-registration purposes. Changes in p ET CO 2 were achieved by controlling the subjects inspired gases with the aid of a nose clip, a mouthpiece, the rebreathing circuit, and a gas sequencer. To ensure that end-tidal gases are representative of lung gas concentrations, subjects were instructed to breathe deeply during the test. The test itself consisted of eight cycles of hypercapnia (45sec at ˜ 50mmHg) interspersed with eight cycles of hypocapnia (45sec at ˜ 30mmHg) all of which was regulated by an automated sequencer. Hypercapnia was induced by administering a gas mixture of 8% CO 2 /92% O 2 at 14L/min for 15s and maintained at plateau for a subsequent 30s by reducing gas flow to 1.5–2 L/min of O 2 . During the plateau phase, the decreased inflow of fresh gases resulted in rebreathing of previously exhaled gases contained in the expiratory reservoir tube. Intervals of low CO 2 were achieved by supplying subjects with 15sec of high flow (16–18 L/min) of 100% O 2 and maintained by O 2 flow at a rate of 12–14 L/min. Partial pressures of end-tidal CO 2 (p ET CO 2 ) and O 2 (p ET O 2 ) were monitored continuously using a commercially available capnograph and recorded digitally at a sampling rate of 60Hz/channel. After completion of the measurements, the collected p ET CO 2 data was reduced to one measure of p ET CO 2 per breath and correlation analysis with the BOLD data was performed. Prior to this, the BOLD data was co-registered to compensate for motion artifacts. Signal of the whole brain was used as a reference to determine the shift needed to bring the CO 2 and the MR data sets in phase. Once in phase, CVR maps were calculated on a pixel by pixel basis from the slope of the regression of the percentage change of MR signal on the p ET CO 2 . This provides a measure of reactivity expressed in units of % Δ MR signal/mmHg p ET CO 2 . Signal drop-out was measured as the sum of all the pixels within a mask automatically generated by AFNI [2]. Differences in reactivity, residual noise and signal drop-out between the 2 acquisition schemes were assessed using a paired student's t-test. Results: For 1.5T, there was no significant difference between spiral and EPI for any of the measures (% signal changes, residuals and signal drop-out) (p>0.74). For 3T, differences between the techniques were only significant for signal drop-out (p<0.043). All results are summarized in table 1. Figure 1 shows an example of more signal drop-out using spiral at 3T. Conclusion: Our results show no significant difference in sensitivity and systematic error between techniques. While signal-drop out was not significantly different at 1.5T, differences were more pronounced at 3T. In this study we used a conventional spiral-out technique. The more recently developed spiral in-out technique [3], however, has promise to markedly reduce signal drop-out. We will compare this method with single-shot parallel EPI in a future study. References: 1. Vesely et al. MRM 2002, 2. AFNI – http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/afni , 3. Preston et al. NeuroImage 2004 Table 1:

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden VerfahrenMême sujetMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207