Evaluation of Ultrafast Wave-CAIPI MPRAGE for Visual Grading and Automated Measurement of Brain Tissue Volume

References

1. 1.
   1. Rusinek H,
   2. de Leon MJ,
   3. George AE, et al

   . Alzheimer disease: measuring loss of cerebral gray matter with MR imaging. Radiology 1991;178:109–14 doi:10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984287 pmid:1984287

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.
   1. Lehmann M,
   2. Douiri A,
   3. Kim LG, et al

   . Atrophy patterns in Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia: a comparison of FreeSurfer and manual volumetric measurements. Neuroimage 2010;49:2264–74 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.056 pmid:19874902

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.
   1. Frisoni GB,
   2. Fox NC,
   3. Jack CR, et al

   . The clinical use of structural MRI in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2010;6:67–77 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2009.215 pmid:20139996

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Zarei M,
   2. Ibarretxe-Bilbao N,
   3. Compta Y, et al

   . Cortical thinning is associated with disease stages and dementia in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:875–82 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-304126 pmid:23463873

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Mugler JP,
   2. Brookeman JR

   . Rapid three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging with the MP-RAGE sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:561–67 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880010509 pmid:1790381

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Munn Z,
   2. Pearson A,
   3. Jordan Z, et al

   . Patient anxiety and satisfaction in a magnetic resonance imaging department: Initial results from an action research study. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2015;46:23–29 doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2014.07.006 pmid:31052060

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.
   1. Havsteen I,
   2. Ohlhues A,
   3. Madsen KH, et al

   . Are movement artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging a real problem? A narrative review. Front Neurol 2017;8:232 doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00232 pmid:28611728

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Savalia NK,
   2. Agres PF,
   3. Chan MY, et al

   . Motion-related artifacts in structural brain images revealed with independent estimates of in-scanner head motion. Hum Brain Mapp 2017;38:472–92 doi:10.1002/hbm.23397 pmid:27634551

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Bilgic B,
   2. Gagoski BA,
   3. Cauley SF, et al

   . Wave-CAIPI for highly accelerated 3D imaging. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:2152–62 doi:10.1002/mrm.25347 pmid:24986223

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Cauley SF,
    2. Setsompop K,
    3. Bilgic B, et al

    . Autocalibrated wave-CAIPI reconstruction; Joint optimization of k-space trajectory and parallel imaging reconstruction. Magn Reson Med 2017;78:1093–99 doi:10.1002/mrm.26499 pmid:27770457

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Conklin J,
    2. Longo MGF,
    3. Cauley SF, et al

    . Validation of highly accelerated Wave-CAIPI SWI compared with conventional SWI and T2*-weighted gradient recalled-echo for routine clinical brain MRI at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:2073–80 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6295 pmid:31727749

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Polak D,
    2. Setsompop K,
    3. Cauley SF, et al

    . Wave-CAIPI for highly accelerated MP-RAGE imaging. Magn Reson Med 2018;79:401–06 doi:10.1002/mrm.26649 pmid:28220617

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Nielsen JA,
    2. Mair RW,
    3. Baker JT, et al

    . Precision brain morphometry: feasibility and opportunities of extreme rapid scans. bioRxiv January 26, 2019 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/530436v1. Accessed May 1, 2020
14. 14.↵
    1. Reuter M,
    2. Schmansky NJ,
    3. Rosas HD, et al

    . Within-subject template estimation for unbiased robust and sensitive longitudinal image analysis. Neuroimage 2012;61:1402–18 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.084 pmid:22430496

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Reuter M,
    2. Rosas HD,
    3. Fischl B

    . Highly accurate inverse consistent robust registration: a robust approach. Neuroimage 2010;53:1181–96 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.020 pmid:20637289

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Jenkinson M,
    2. Bannister P,
    3. Brady M, et al

    . Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage 2002;17:825–41 doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 pmid:12377157

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Jenkinson M,
    2. Smith S

    . A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal 2001;5:143–56 doi:10.1016/S1361-8415(01)00036-6 pmid:11516708

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Steen RG,
    2. Hamer RM,
    3. Lieberman JA

    . Measuring brain volume by MR imaging: Impact of measurement precision and natural variation on sample size requirements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1119–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0537 pmid:17569971

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Ranta ME,
    2. Chen M,
    3. Crocetti D, et al

    . Automated MRI parcellation of the frontal lobe. Hum Brain Mapp 2014;35:2009–26 doi:10.1002/hbm.22309 pmid:23897577

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Dice L

    . Measurement of the amount of ecological association between species. Ecology 1945;26:297–302 doi:10.2307/1932409

    CrossRefWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Zijdenbos AP,
    2. Dawant BM,
    3. Margolin RA, et al

    . Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994;13:716–24 doi:10.1109/42.363096 pmid:18218550

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Douaud G,
    2. Smith S,
    3. Jenkinson M, et al

    . Anatomically related grey and white matter abnormalities in adolescent-onset schizophrenia. Brain 2007;130:2375–86 doi:10.1093/brain/awm184 pmid:17698497

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Good CD,
    2. Johnsrude IS,
    3. Ashburner J, et al

    . A voxel-based morphometric study of ageing in 465 normal adult human brains. Neuroimage 2001;14:21–36 doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0786 pmid:11525331

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Woolrich MW, et al

    . Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 2004;23(Suppl 1):1S208–19 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 pmid:15501092

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Andersson JL,
    2. Jenkinson M.
    3. Smith S

    . Non-linear registration, aka spatial normalization; FMRIB technical report TR07JA2. 2007 https://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/datasets/techrep/tr07ja2/tr07ja2.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020
26. 26.↵
    1. Harper L,
    2. Fumagalli GG,
    3. Barkhof F, et al

    . MRI visual rating scales in the diagnosis of dementia: evaluation in 184 post-mortem confirmed cases. Brain 2016;139:1211–25 doi:10.1093/brain/aww005 pmid:26936938

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Davies RR,
    2. Kipps CM,
    3. Mitchell J, et al

    . Progression in frontotemporal dementia: identifying a benign behavioral variant by magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Neurol 2006;63:1627–31 doi:10.1001/archneur.63.11.1627 pmid:7101833

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Kipps CM,
    2. Davies RR,
    3. Mitchell J, et al

    . Clinical significance of lobar atrophy in frontotemporal dementia: application of an MRI visual rating scale. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2007;23:334–42 doi:10.1159/000100973 pmid:17374952

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Scheltens P,
    2. Leys D,
    3. Barkhof F, et al

    . Atrophy of medial temporal lobes on MRI in “probable Alzheimer’s disease and normal ageing: diagnostic value and neuropsychological correlates. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992;55:967–72 doi:10.1136/jnnp.55.10.967 pmid:1431963

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Koedam E,
    2. Lehmann M,
    3. van der Flier WM, et al

    . Visual assessment of posterior atrophy development of a MRI rating scale. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2618–25 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2205-4 pmid:21805370

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Davies RR,
    2. Scahill VL,
    3. Graham A, et al

    . Development of an MRI rating scale for multiple brain regions: comparison with volumetrics and with voxel-based morphometry. Neuroradiology 2009;51:491–503 doi:10.1007/s00234-009-0521-z pmid:19308367

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Nichols TE

    . Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference. Neuroimage 2009;44:83–98 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061 pmid:18501637

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    1. Ahn S,
    2. Park SH,
    3. Lee KH

    . How to demonstrate similarity using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 2013;267:328–38 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120725 pmid:23610094

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    1. Polak D,
    2. Cauley S,
    3. Huang SY, et al

    . Highly-accelerated volumetric brain examination using optimized wave-CAIPI encoding. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50:961–14 doi:10.1002/jmri.26678 pmid:30734388

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Maclaren J,
    2. Han Z,
    3. Vos SB, et al

    . Reliability of brain volume measurements: a test-retest dataset. Sci Data 2014;1:1–9 doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.37 pmid:25977792

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Iscan Z,
    2. Jin TB,
    3. Kendrick A, et al

    . Test-retest reliability of FreeSurfer measurements within and between sites: effects of visual approval process. Hum Brain Mapp 2015;36:3472–85 doi:10.1002/hbm.22856 pmid:26033168

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Haller S,
    2. Falkovskiy P,
    3. Meuli R, et al

    . Basic MR sequence parameters systematically bias automated brain volume estimation. Neuroradiology 2016;58:1153–60 doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1737-3 pmid:27623782

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Jovicich J,
    2. Czanner S,
    3. Han X, et al

    . MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. Neuroimage 2009;46:177–92 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.010 pmid:19233293

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    1. Gronenschild E,
    2. Habets P,
    3. Jacobs HIL, et al

    . The effects of FreeSurfer version, workstation type, and Macintosh operating system version on anatomical volume and cortical thickness measurements. PLoS One 2012;7:e38234 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038234 pmid:22675527

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Hwang J,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Han Y, et al

    . An automatic cerebellum extraction method in T1-weighted brain MR images using an active contour model with a shape prior. Magn Reson Imaging 2011;29:1014–22 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2011.01.005 pmid:21616622

    CrossRefPubMed