Citations

Abstract Background Cardiac magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) allows the non-invasive quantification of myocardial stiffness, but long-interval reproducibility data at 3.0 T single-frequency 140-Hz remain limited. Purpose To evaluate the short- and long-interval reproducibility of 3.0 T cardiac MRE for left ventricular (LV) myocardial stiffness across healthy volunteers and patients with conditions associated with elevated myocardial stiffness. Materials and Methods This prospective single-center study included 69 participants: 60 healthy volunteers and 9 with cardiovascular disease (6 with aortic stenosis and 3 with long-standing hypertension). All participants underwent baseline cardiac MRE (scanner: Signa Premier 3.0 T, GE Healthcare, driver: Resoundant), an immediate short-interval rescan (SIR) within 5 minutes, and a long-interval rescan (LIR) after approximately 1 month. Left ventricular myocardial stiffness and octahedral shear strain signal-to-noise ratio were measured independently by 2 readers. Reproducibility was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), within-subject coefficient of variation, standard error of measurement, and smallest detectable change at the 95% confidence (SDC95) level. Results Baseline LV myocardial stiffness was higher in the disease group than in healthy volunteers, 11.73 ± 1.01 kPa and 7.80 ± 0.70 kPa (mean ± SD; P < .001), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was excellent across all timepoints, with ICCs of 0.970 at baseline (95% CI, 0.953-0.982), 0.966 for SIR (95% CI, 0.945-0.979), and 0.962 for LIR (95% CI, 0.939-0.976). Within-reader scan-rescan reproducibility was also excellent. For Reader 1, stiffness ICC was 0.979 for the SIR (95% CI, 0.966-0.987) and 0.957 for the LIR (95% CI, 0.932-0.973), with SDC95 values of 0.616 kPa (95% CI, 0.528-0.741) and 0.869 kPa (95% CI, 0.744-1.044), respectively. Reader 2 showed excellent reproducibility, with ICCs ≤0.943. Conclusions 3D single-frequency 140-Hz cardiac MRE at 3.0 T provides excellent short- and long-interval reproducibility for LV myocardial stiffness quantification. The SDC95 values may help distinguish true longitudinal stiffness changes from measurement variability.

Diffusion MRI (dMRI) enables assessment of white matter microstructural abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and multisite datasets enable more robust modeling of non-biological variation that can confound analyses. The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) includes over 10 dMRI protocols, necessitating robust methods to model protocol-related variability when pooling data. Here, we compared three harmonization approaches: (1) mixed-effects models, (2) ComBat-GAM, and (3) eHarmonize, a reference-based lifespan method. We assessed their ability to reduce protocol-related variability in diffusion tensor imaging fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) while preserving associations with cognitive impairment (CI), and amyloid-beta (Aβ) and tau PET burden in 1,086 ADNI3/4 participants. All approaches yielded more closely aligned FA/MD distributions across protocols. Associations with clinical indicators of CI were highly consistent across approaches, whereas PET associations were less widespread and more variable. Overall, multiple strategies effectively modeled protocol-related variability while preserving AD-related associations.

Abstract Background Neuroimaging data typically arrives as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files, batched by exam. We use exam or study to denote a single imaging session of a participant, containing up to ∼40 series (the generic term for scans and derived products). Different series have different properties and applications, making their labeling complex. Filenames often change in transit, and Series Description tags (0008, 103E) are arbitrary, operator‐entered, and unreliably coupled to the series type. Furthermore, label preferences vary from site to site, making the application of a common classification system mandatory for multisite studies. Here we describe the system that we have developed and applied to the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and SCAN. Method Although Series Description is unreliable, DICOM includes other tags that parameterize MR pulse sequences and suggest their purpose. The mapping from these features to types is difficult to explicitly specify, especially since different manufacturers and protocols use different conventions. Thus we developed a machine learning classifier using 4060 semiautomatically labeled head and spinal series from 1.5 to 7T MR scanners, including both site‐specific and standard protocols designed to study a wide range of neurological conditions, including dementia, hydrocephalus, and multiple sclerosis. An 80%/20% split, stratified by type, was used for the training/test sets. After initial training, a few cases in the training set with high errors due to rarity were augmented and the model retrained. Performance was evaluated on the clean test set. Result The taxonomy is presented in Table 1. The classifier correctly identified 807 out of 812 (99.4%) series, with the error cases coming from outside the ADNI or SCAN protocols (Table 2). The confusion matrix is shown in Figure 1. Conclusion We implemented an automatic series type classifier with labels chosen to be generally useful for the brain MRI community. Some errors were noted, but the test set was deliberately challenging and the errors appear to be ones that could easily be made by a human. The classifier is expected to have good tolerance for as yet unseen head MR protocols but is likely unsatisfactory for body MRI.

Abstract Background T2*‐weighted imaging is of paramount importance for patient treatment eligibility and safety monitoring in anti‐amyloid pharmaceutical clinical trials and clinical care. Recently with the adoption of multi‐echo GRE (GRE) sequences, susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can be obtained in the same acquisition. In 2024, the QSM Consensus Organization Committee released a white paper recommending at least 1 mm isotropic voxel size for QSM. In clinical workflows microbleed detection is performed with higher in‐plane resolution (0.5x0.5mm 2 ), and large out‐of‐plane resolution (∼1.8mm), which was used in the ADNI4 protocol. In the CLARiTI protocol, a 1mm isotropic resolution was adopted. The objective of this work was to compare susceptibility estimates between the ADNI4 (0.5x0.5x1.8mm 3 ) and CLARiTI (1mm 3 ) protocols. Method The ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM protocols were acquired on forty‐seven subjects (33 cognitively unimpaired (CU), 14 cognitively impaired (CI), in the same scan session. The groups were defined by their Clinical Demential Rating (CDR) global score (CDR global = 0 for CU, and CDR global >= 0.5 for CI subjects). QSM images were generated using publically available software (STI Suite, UC Berkeley). Mean susceptibility values in atlas regions were compared. Result Significant group differences (CU vs. CI) were observed in the fusiform and middle occipital gyrus with the ADNI4 protocol, only in the rectus with the CLARiTI protocol (Figure 1). These three regions are small in size and closer to surface‐air interfaces, which may have impacted estimation accuracy. However, in the substantia nigra and its sub‐regions (pars compacta and pars reticulata), which shows increased susceptibility in Lewy body disease, the ADNI4 and CLARiTI protocols were in good agreement (r 2 > 0.9) (Figure 2). Conclusion Group differences were observed between the ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM only in 3 small regions close to surface‐air interfaces in this small dataset. The two techniques showed highly correlated (r 2 = 0.93) estimates in the substantia nigra, a region with high susceptibility due to iron deposition. Strong correlations between the two protocols are encouraging. Radiologists have historically preferred submillimeter in‐plane resolution for microbleed detection, which is more time manageable with anisotropic imaging.

Abstract Background Diffusion MRI (dMRI) measures are increasingly being used as biomarkers for aging and dementia in multi‐center studies. Measurements in longitudinal studies are often acquired on different systems, which can result in systematic differences of machine origin (e.g. vendor, hardware, algorithms). This may warrant harmonization prior to pooling multi‐site data. However, harmonization algorithms may introduce a risk of removing valuable information content and reducing sensitivity to physiological factors (e.g. sex, age, disease). Here, we tested the hypothesis that protocol standardization may minimize machine‐origin differences, obviating a need for post‐acquisition harmonization in a two‐site (Mississippi‐MS and Minnesota‐MN) cohort of the longitudinal Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Methods Two data sets were analyzed: first, a crossover dataset with 80 participants (scanned within 2 days) bridging two different protocols on GE and Siemens scanners; second, participants scanned using standardized protocols from the ongoing MCSA ( N MN‐MCSA =204; N MS‐MCSA =52). Parameters are listed in Figure 1. For crossover data, analyses were repeated with GE data resampled to 2‐mm isotropic resolution, and discarding Siemens‐only b‐shells to artificially reduce protocol disparities. Analysis encompassed visualization of overlain subjectwise histogram‐derived densities obtained from whole‐brain masks for dMRI measures; and median dMRI measures from within the genu of the corpus callosum (GCC) with nonparametric statistical testing. When available, both DTI and NODDI measures were compared. Results Pronounced visual distributional differences seen between MD and FA in crossover data were reduced with resampling of GE data and including only b‐shells shared across acquisitions. For the resampled/reshelled data, significant differences remained for all GCC‐FA comparisons, but not all GCC‐MD (Figure 2). For the ongoing MCSA data from two sites, MD and FA whole‐brain densities were more closely aligned, with GCC‐FA and GCC‐MD showing no significant differences (Figure 3). NODDI measures showed more discordant densities than DTI measures, including shifts in most probable values and differences in distributional arrangement. Conclusions Our work provides further evidence supporting protocol and processing standardization for minimizing machine‐origin differences prior to considering harmonization. Differences in dMRI metrics seen when comparing across unstandardized protocols were reduced when protocols were standardized. NODDI metrics had more apparent sensitivity to site than DTI measures.

Abstract Background Diffusion MRI (dMRI) measures are increasingly being used as biomarkers for aging and dementia in multi‐center studies. Measurements in longitudinal studies are often acquired on different systems, which can result in systematic differences of machine origin (e.g. vendor, hardware, algorithms). This may warrant harmonization prior to pooling multi‐site data. However, harmonization algorithms may introduce a risk of removing valuable information content and reducing sensitivity to physiological factors (e.g. sex, age, disease). Here, we tested the hypothesis that protocol standardization may minimize machine‐origin differences, obviating a need for post‐acquisition harmonization in a two‐site (Mississippi‐MS and Minnesota‐MN) cohort of the longitudinal Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Methods Two data sets were analyzed: first, a crossover dataset with 80 participants (scanned within 2 days) bridging two different protocols on GE and Siemens scanners; second, participants scanned using standardized protocols from the ongoing MCSA ( N MN‐MCSA =204; N MS‐MCSA =52). Parameters are listed in Figure 1. For crossover data, analyses were repeated with GE data resampled to 2‐mm isotropic resolution, and discarding Siemens‐only b‐shells to artificially reduce protocol disparities. Analysis encompassed visualization of overlain subjectwise histogram‐derived densities obtained from whole‐brain masks for dMRI measures; and median dMRI measures from within the genu of the corpus callosum (GCC) with nonparametric statistical testing. When available, both DTI and NODDI measures were compared. Results Pronounced visual distributional differences seen between MD and FA in crossover data were reduced with resampling of GE data and including only b‐shells shared across acquisitions. For the resampled/reshelled data, significant differences remained for all GCC‐FA comparisons, but not all GCC‐MD (Figure 2). For the ongoing MCSA data from two sites, MD and FA whole‐brain densities were more closely aligned, with GCC‐FA and GCC‐MD showing no significant differences (Figure 3). NODDI measures showed more discordant densities than DTI measures, including shifts in most probable values and differences in distributional arrangement. Conclusions Our work provides further evidence supporting protocol and processing standardization for minimizing machine‐origin differences prior to considering harmonization. Differences in dMRI metrics seen when comparing across unstandardized protocols were reduced when protocols were standardized. NODDI metrics had more apparent sensitivity to site than DTI measures.

Abstract Background T2*‐weighted imaging is of paramount importance for patient treatment eligibility and safety monitoring in anti‐amyloid pharmaceutical clinical trials and clinical care. Recently with the adoption of multi‐echo GRE (GRE) sequences, susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can be obtained in the same acquisition. In 2024, the QSM Consensus Organization Committee released a white paper recommending at least 1 mm isotropic voxel size for QSM. In clinical workflows microbleed detection is performed with higher in‐plane resolution (0.5x0.5mm 2 ), and large out‐of‐plane resolution (∼1.8mm), which was used in the ADNI4 protocol. In the CLARiTI protocol, a 1mm isotropic resolution was adopted. The objective of this work was to compare susceptibility estimates between the ADNI4 (0.5x0.5x1.8mm 3 ) and CLARiTI (1mm 3 ) protocols. Method The ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM protocols were acquired on forty‐seven subjects (33 cognitively unimpaired (CU), 14 cognitively impaired (CI), in the same scan session. The groups were defined by their Clinical Demential Rating (CDR) global score (CDR global = 0 for CU, and CDR global >= 0.5 for CI subjects). QSM images were generated using publically available software (STI Suite, UC Berkeley). Mean susceptibility values in atlas regions were compared. Result Significant group differences (CU vs. CI) were observed in the fusiform and middle occipital gyrus with the ADNI4 protocol, only in the rectus with the CLARiTI protocol (Figure 1). These three regions are small in size and closer to surface‐air interfaces, which may have impacted estimation accuracy. However, in the substantia nigra and its sub‐regions (pars compacta and pars reticulata), which shows increased susceptibility in Lewy body disease, the ADNI4 and CLARiTI protocols were in good agreement (r 2 > 0.9) (Figure 2). Conclusion Group differences were observed between the ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM only in 3 small regions close to surface‐air interfaces in this small dataset. The two techniques showed highly correlated (r 2 = 0.93) estimates in the substantia nigra, a region with high susceptibility due to iron deposition. Strong correlations between the two protocols are encouraging. Radiologists have historically preferred submillimeter in‐plane resolution for microbleed detection, which is more time manageable with anisotropic imaging.

Abstract Background Neuroimaging data typically arrives as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files, batched by exam. We use exam or study to denote a single imaging session of a participant, containing up to ∼40 series (the generic term for scans and derived products). Different series have different properties and applications, making their labeling complex. Filenames often change in transit, and Series Description tags (0008, 103E) are arbitrary, operator‐entered, and unreliably coupled to the series type. Furthermore, label preferences vary from site to site, making the application of a common classification system mandatory for multisite studies. Here we describe the system that we have developed and applied to the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and SCAN. Method Although Series Description is unreliable, DICOM includes other tags that parameterize MR pulse sequences and suggest their purpose. The mapping from these features to types is difficult to explicitly specify, especially since different manufacturers and protocols use different conventions. Thus we developed a machine learning classifier using 4060 semiautomatically labeled head and spinal series from 1.5 to 7T MR scanners, including both site‐specific and standard protocols designed to study a wide range of neurological conditions, including dementia, hydrocephalus, and multiple sclerosis. An 80%/20% split, stratified by type, was used for the training/test sets. After initial training, a few cases in the training set with high errors due to rarity were augmented and the model retrained. Performance was evaluated on the clean test set. Result The taxonomy is presented in Table 1. The classifier correctly identified 807 out of 812 (99.4%) series, with the error cases coming from outside the ADNI or SCAN protocols (Table 2). The confusion matrix is shown in Figure 1. Conclusion We implemented an automatic series type classifier with labels chosen to be generally useful for the brain MRI community. Some errors were noted, but the test set was deliberately challenging and the errors appear to be ones that could easily be made by a human. The classifier is expected to have good tolerance for as yet unseen head MR protocols but is likely unsatisfactory for body MRI.

ABSTRACT Purpose Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of the heart has predominantly utilized breath‐held acquisitions with limited anatomic coverage. This work investigates the feasibility of 3D, free‐breathing cardiac MRE. Methods A 3D hybrid radial and EPI acquisition is utilized and combined with retrospective binning of k ‐space via physiologic monitoring, iterative reconstruction, MRE processing and inversions, and post‐processing specialized for cardiac imaging. Results Feasibility of free‐breathing stiffness mapping of the left ventricular myocardium was demonstrated in 11 participants. Myocardial stiffness estimates were obtained throughout the left ventricle for seven temporal states of the cardiac cycle. Stiffness estimates were presented in participant‐specific images, 17‐segment bullseye plots, and stiffness plots throughout the cardiac cycle. Results indicate increased stiffness in systolic states, with localized stiffness heterogeneity observed between participants, illustrating a key benefit of 3D cardiac MRE acquisition. Mean stiffness estimates obtained through 11 subjects were 4.44 ± 0.68 kPa (begin‐systole), 5.74 ± 0.94, 5.42 ± 0.87 (end‐systole), 3.84 ± 0.71 (begin‐diastole), 3.51 ± 0.74, 3.54 ± 0.52, and 3.55 ± 0.59 kPa (end‐diastole). Statistical testing indicated significant differences in stiffness across cardiac states with one‐way, repeated‐measures ANOVA ( p < 0.001) and Friedman's test ( p < 0.001). Experiments in scanning three participants with and without applied motion indicated that stiffness changes were more robustly detected in systole than in diastole, although patterns were subject‐specific. Comparison of free‐breathing stiffness measurements against reference breath‐held measurements yielded similar systolic stiffness estimates. Conclusions This study establishes the feasibility of free‐breathing, 3D cardiac MRE in healthy volunteers. With the current framework, stiffness estimation appears more robust in systole, and the reliability of diastolic estimates is limited and subject‐specific.