Comparing 3 T and 1.5 T MRI for tracking Alzheimer's disease progression with tensor-based morphometry.
Comparing 3 T and 1.5 T MRI for tracking Alzheimer's disease progression with tensor-based morphometry.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/hbm.20882
复制
发表时间：
2010-04
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Thompson, Paul M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ho, April J.;Hua, Xue;Lee, Suh;Leow, Alex D.;Yanovsky, Igor;Gutman, Boris;Dinov, Ivo D.;Lepore, Natasha;Stein, Jason L.;Toga, Arthur W.;Jack, Clifford R., Jr.;Bernstein, Matt A.;Reiman, Eric M.;Harvey, Danielle J.;Kornak, John;Schuff, Norbert;Alexander, Gene E.;Weiner, Michael W.;Thompson, Paul M.
设计基于核磁共振成像的临床试验的一个关键问题是扫描仪的主磁场强度如何影响检测疾病效果的功率。在110名受试者中，以3.0和1.5 T纵向扫描，包括24名阿尔茨海默病（AD）患者[74.8±9.2岁，MMSE：基线时22.6±2.0]，51名轻度认知障碍（MCI）患者[74.1±8.0岁，MMSE: 26.6±2.0]，35名对照组[75.9±4.6岁，MMSE：29.3±0.8]，我们评估了高场磁共振成像在检测大脑纵向变化方面是提供了更高还是更低的功率，使用基于张量的形态测量（TBM）来显示进行性萎缩的位置。正如预期的那样，在两种电场强度下，进行性萎缩在AD中普遍存在，而在MCI中则受到更多空间限制。功率分析显示，要检测到25%的萎缩减缓（功率为80%），在1.5 T时需要37名AD和108名MCI受试者，而在3 T时需要49名AD和166名MCI受试者；然而，无论对于TBM还是SIENA（一种计算体积损失率的相关方法），1.5 T时功率的增加都没有统计学意义（α = 0.05）。对累积分布函数和错误发现率的分析表明，在两种场强下，颞叶萎缩率与阿尔茨海默病评估量表-认知亚量表（ADAS-cog）、迷你精神状态检查（MMSE）和临床痴呆评分盒和（CDR-SB）评分的间隔下降相关。总的来说，1.5 T和3t扫描在一年内检测神经退行性变化的能力上没有显著差异。
A key question in designing MRI-based clinical trials is how the main magnetic field strength of the scanner affects the power to detect disease effects. In 110 subjects scanned longitudinally at both 3.0 and 1.5 T, including 24 patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) [74.8 ± 9.2 years, MMSE: 22.6 ± 2.0 at baseline], 51 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) [74.1 ± 8.0 years, MMSE: 26.6 ± 2.0], and 35 controls [75.9 ± 4.6 years, MMSE: 29.3 ± 0.8], we assessed whether higher-field MR imaging offers higher or lower power to detect longitudinal changes in the brain, using tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to reveal the location of progressive atrophy. As expected, at both field strengths, progressive atrophy was widespread in AD and more spatially restricted in MCI. Power analysis revealed that, to detect a 25% slowing of atrophy (with 80% power), 37 AD and 108 MCI subjects would be needed at 1.5 T versus 49 AD and 166 MCI subjects at 3 T; however, the increased power at 1.5 T was not statistically significant (α = 0.05) either for TBM, or for SIENA, a related method for computing volume loss rates. Analysis of cumulative distribution functions and false discovery rates showed that, at both field strengths, temporal lobe atrophy rates were correlated with interval decline in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), mini-mental status exam (MMSE), and Clinical Dementia Rating sum-of-boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Overall, 1.5 and 3 T scans did not significantly differ in their power to detect neurodegenerative changes over a year.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
COLLINS, DL;NEELIN, P;EVANS, AC
通讯作者：
EVANS, AC
影响因子：
9.9
作者：
Jack, CR;Shiung, MM;Petersen, RC
通讯作者：
Petersen, RC
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Genovese, CR;Lazar, NA;Nichols, T
通讯作者：
Nichols, T
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Chou YY;Leporé N;Chiang MC;Avedissian C;Barysheva M;McMahon KL;de Zubicaray GI;Meredith M;Wright MJ;Toga AW;Thompson PM
通讯作者：
Thompson PM
DOI：
10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
发表时间：
1995-01-01
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
BENJAMINI, Y;HOCHBERG, Y
通讯作者：
HOCHBERG, Y