Why the study?
Motor unit MRI non-invasively detects fasciculation, a common symptom of spinal muscular atrophy and a potential biomarker for clinical trials.
Does motor unit MRI detect differences in fasciculation rates and fat fraction between SMA patients and controls?
Does motor unit MRI detect differences in fasciculation rates and fat fraction between SMA patients and controls?
MUMRI can non-invasively detect higher fasciculation rates and fat fractions in SMA patients compared to controls, suggesting its potential as a biomarker for clinical trials.
May support MUMRI for non-invasive SMA assessment; hypothesis-generating for biomarker use in trials.
Motor unit MRI (MUMRI) non-invasively detects fasciculation, a common symptom of SMA and potential biomarker for clinical trials. We applied MUMRI in ten SMA III patients and ten controls comparing fasciculation rates. Images of the tongue, upper arm, paraspinal and thighs & lower legs were acquired using MUMRI and 3-point Dixon (fat fraction) sequences. Fasciculation rate (cm −3 min −1 ) was significantly higher in SMA than controls for: paraspinal 0.15 ± 0.20 vs. 0.003 ± 0.006, p=0.001, thighs 1.28 ± 1.76 vs. 0.008 ± 0.005, p=0.002 and lower legs 0.53 ± 0.85 vs. 0.02 ± 0.02, p=0.001, but not for the tongue 0.20 ± 0.20 vs. 0.06 ± 0.09, p=0.082 or upper arm 0.45 ± 0.95 vs. 0.002 ± 0.004, p=0.014. Fat fraction %, was significantly higher in SMA than controls for: upper arm 35.0 ± 25.4 vs. 4.2 ± 1.1, p<<0.001, paraspinal 41.4 ± 31.0 vs. 7.4 ± 4.5, p=0.002, thighs 54.8 ± 23.8 vs. 5.7 ± 1.0, p<<0.001 and lower legs 29.6 ± 23.5 vs. 4.4 ± 0.9, p=0.0003, but not for the tongue 13.9 ± 3.2 vs. 13.0 ± 3.3, p=0.393. MUMRI is an attractive non-invasive biomarker, which could be used to monitor progression & response in SMA clinical trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Birkbeck et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: