Key result
Postacquisition rescaling mitigates ~6 ms differences in ACL T2 relaxation times across MRI scanners.
Why the study?
Variations in MRI acquisition parameters between scanners challenge quantitative assessment, necessitating evaluation of T2 relaxometry and CISS reproducibility across scanners.
Observational (n=7)
Postacquisition correction methods can successfully harmonize quantitative MRI data of the ACL across different scanners, mitigating variations caused by acquisition parameters.
Scanner variability may confound ACL T2 interpretation; leaves open whether rescaling enables reliable multi-center quantitative MRI.
Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging has been used to evaluate the structural integrity of knee joint structures. However, variations in acquisition parameters between scanners pose significant challenges. Understanding the effect of small differences in acquisition parameters for quantitative sequences is vital to the validity of cross‐institutional studies, and for the harmonization of large, heterogeneous datasets to train machine learning models. The study objective was to assess the reproducibility of T2* relaxometry and the constructive interference in steady‐state sequence (CISS) across scanners, with minimal hardware‐necessitated changes to acquisition parameters. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between scanners in anterior cruciate ligament T2* relaxation times and CISS signal intensities (SI). Secondarily, it was hypothesized that differences could be corrected by rescaling the SI distribution to harmonize between scanners. Seven volunteers were scanned on 3T Prisma and Tim Trio scanners (Siemens). Three correction methods were evaluated for T2*: inverse echo time scaling, z‐scoring, and Nyúl histogram matching. For CISS, scans were normalized to cortical bone, scaled by the background noise ratio, and log‐transformed. Before correction, significant mean differences of 6.0 ± 3.2 ms (71.8%; p = 0.02) and 0.49 ± 0.15 units (40.7%; p = 0.02) for T2* and CISS across scanners were observed, respectively. After rescaling, T2* differences decreased to 2.6 ± 2.7 ms (23.9%; p = 0.03), 1.3 ± 2.5 ms (10.9%; p = 0.13), and 1.27 ± 3.0 ms (19.6%; p = 0.40) for inverse echo time, z‐scoring, and Nyúl, respectively, while CISS decreased to 0.01 ± 0.11 units (4.0%; p = 0.87). These findings suggest that small acquisition parameter differences may lead to large changes in T2* and SI values that must be reconciled to compare data across magnets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Flannery et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) imaging (n=7). Different MRI scanners (3T Prisma vs Tim Trio) was evaluated on Differences in anterior cruciate ligament T2 relaxation times and CISS signal intensities between scanners (MD 6.0 ms for T2 and 0.49 units for CISS, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: