Search

Background and Purpose: The Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System (BT-RADS) is a structured radiology reporting algorithm that was introduced to provide uniformity in posttreatment primary brain tumor follow-up and reporting, but its interrater reliability (IRR) assessment has not been widely studied. Our goal is to evaluate the IRR among neuroradiologists and radiology residents in the use of BT-RADS., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 103 consecutive MR studies in 98 adult patients previously diagnosed with and treated for primary brain tumor (January 2019 to February 2019). Six readers with varied experience (4 neuroradiologists and 2 radiology residents) independently evaluated each case and assigned a BT-RADS score. Readers were blinded to the original score reports and the reports from other readers. Cases in which at least 1 neuroradiologist scored differently were subjected to consensus scoring. After the study, a post hoc reference score was also assigned by 2 readers by using future imaging and clinical information previously unavailable to readers. The interrater reliabilities were assessed by using the Gwet AC2 index with ordinal weights and percent agreement., Results: Of the 98 patients evaluated (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 41-66 years), 53% were men. The most common tumor type was astrocytoma (77%) of which 56% were grade 4 glioblastoma. Gwet index for interrater reliability among all 6 readers was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87). The Gwet index for the neuroradiologists' group (0.84 [95% CI: 0.79-0.89]) was not statistically different from that for the residents' group (0.79 [95% CI: 0.72-0.86]) (χ 2 = 0.85; P = .36). All 4 neuroradiologists agreed on the same BT-RADS score in 57 of the 103 studies, 3 neuroradiologists agreed in 21 of the 103 studies, and 2 neuroradiologists agreed in 21 of the 103 studies. Percent agreement between neuroradiologist blinded scores and post hoc reference scores ranged from 41%-52%., Conclusions: A very good interrater agreement was found when tumor reports were interpreted by independent blinded readers by using BT-RADS criteria. Further study is needed to determine if this high overall agreement can translate into greater consistency in clinical care., (© 2024 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.)

Background: While fluctuations in healthy brain temperature have been investigated over time periods of weeks to months, dynamics over shorter time periods are less clear., Purpose: To identify physiological fluctuations in brain temperature in healthy volunteers over time scales of approximately 1 hour., Study Type: Prospective., Subjects: A total of 30 healthy volunteers (15 female; 26 ± 4 years old)., Sequence and Field Strength: 3 T; T1-weighted magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) and semi-localized by adiabatic selective refocusing (sLASER) single-voxel spectroscopy., Assessments: Brain temperature was calculated from the chemical shift difference between N-acetylaspartate and water. To evaluate within-scan repeatability of brain temperature and the brain-body temperature difference, 128 spectral transients were divided into two sets of 64-spectra. Between-scan repeatability was evaluated using two time periods, ~1-1.5 hours apart., Statistical Tests: A hierarchical linear mixed model was used to calculate within-scan and between-scan correlations (R w and R b , respectively). Significance was determined at P ≤ .05. Values are reported as the mean ± standard deviation., Results: A significant difference in brain temperature was observed between scans (-0.4 °C) but body temperature was stable (P = .59). Brain temperature (37.9 ± 0.7 °C) was higher than body temperature (36.5 ± 0.5 °C) for all but one subject. Within-scan correlation was high for brain temperature (R w  = 0.95) and brain-body temperature differences (R w  = 0.96). Between scans, variability was high for both brain temperature (R b  = 0.30) and brain-body temperature differences (R b  = 0.41)., Data Conclusion: Significant changes in brain temperature over time scales of ~1 hour were observed. High short-term repeatability suggests temperature changes appear to be due to physiology rather than measurement error., Evidence Level: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1., (© 2022 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

Multiband acquisition, also called simultaneous multislice, has become a popular technique in resting-state functional connectivity studies. Multiband (MB) acceleration leads to a higher temporal resolution but also leads to spatially heterogeneous noise amplification, suggesting the costs may be greater in areas such as the subcortex. We evaluate MB factors of 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12 with 2 mm isotropic voxels, and additionally 2 mm and 3.3 mm single-band acquisitions, on a 32-channel head coil. Noise amplification was greater in deeper brain regions, including subcortical regions. Correlations were attenuated by noise amplification, which resulted in spatially varying biases that were more severe at higher MB factors. Temporal filtering decreased spatial biases in correlations due to noise amplification, but also tended to decrease effect sizes. In seed-based correlation maps, left-right putamen connectivity and thalamo-motor connectivity were highest in the single-band 3.3 mm protocol. In correlation matrices, MB 4, 6, and 8 had a greater number of significant correlations than the other acquisitions (both with and without temporal filtering). We recommend single-band 3.3 mm for seed-based subcortical analyses, and MB 4 provides a reasonable balance for studies analyzing both seed-based correlation maps and connectivity matrices. In multiband studies including secondary analyses of large-scale datasets, we recommend reporting effect sizes or test statistics instead of correlations. If correlations are reported, temporal filtering (or another method for thermal noise removal) should be used. The Emory Multiband Dataset is available on OpenNeuro., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It is of great interest to quantify the contributions of genetic variation to brain structure and function, which are usually measured by high-dimensional imaging data (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging). In addition to the variance, the covariance patterns in the genetic effects of a functional phenotype are of biological importance, and covariance patterns have been linked to psychiatric disorders. The aim of this article is to develop a scalable method to estimate heritability and the nonstationary covariance components in high-dimensional imaging data from twin studies. Our motivating example is from the Human Connectome Project (HCP). Several major big-data challenges arise from estimating the genetic and environmental covariance functions of functional phenotypes extracted from imaging data, such as cortical thickness with 60 000 vertices. Notably, truncating to positive eigenvalues and their eigenfunctions from unconstrained estimators can result in large bias. This motivated our development of a novel estimator ensuring positive semidefiniteness. Simulation studies demonstrate large improvements over existing approaches, both with respect to heritability estimates and covariance estimation. We applied the proposed method to cortical thickness data from the HCP. Our analysis suggests fine-scale differences in covariance patterns, identifying locations in which genetic control is correlated with large areas of the brain and locations where it is highly localized., (© The Author 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Simultaneous multislice (SMS) imaging can be used to decrease the time between acquisition of fMRI volumes, which can increase sensitivity by facilitating the removal of higher-frequency artifacts and boosting effective sample size. The technique requires an additional processing step in which the slices are separated, or unaliased, to recover the whole brain volume. However, this may result in signal "leakage" between aliased locations, i.e., slice "leakage," and lead to spurious activation (decreased specificity). SMS can also lead to noise amplification, which can reduce the benefits of decreased repetition time. In this study, we evaluate the original slice-GRAPPA (no leak block) reconstruction algorithm and acceleration factor (AF = 8) used in the fMRI data in the young adult Human Connectome Project (HCP). We also evaluate split slice-GRAPPA (leak block), which can reduce slice leakage. We use simulations to disentangle higher test statistics into true positives (sensitivity) and false positives (decreased specificity). Slice leakage was greatly decreased by split slice-GRAPPA. Noise amplification was decreased by using moderate acceleration factors (AF = 4). We examined slice leakage in unprocessed fMRI motor task data from the HCP. When data were smoothed, we found evidence of slice leakage in some, but not all, subjects. We also found evidence of SMS noise amplification in unprocessed task and processed resting-state HCP data., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Estimating spatiotemporal models for multi-subject fMRI is computationally challenging. We propose a mixed model for localization studies with spatial random effects and time-series errors. We develop method-of-moment estimators that leverage population and spatial information and are scalable to massive datasets. In simulations, subject-specific estimates of activation are considerably more accurate than the standard voxel-wise general linear model. Our mixed model also allows for valid population inference. We apply our model to cortical data from motor and theory of mind tasks from the Human Connectome Project (HCP). The proposed method results in subject-specific predictions that appear smoother and less noisy than those from the popular single-subject univariate approach. In particular, the regions of motor cortex associated with a left-hand finger-tapping task appear to be more clearly delineated. Subject-specific maps of activation from task fMRI are increasingly used in pre-surgical planning for tumor removal and in locating targets for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Our findings suggest that using spatial and population information is a promising avenue for improving clinical neuroimaging., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We examine differences between independent component analyses (ICAs) arising from different assumptions, measures of dependence, and starting points of the algorithms. ICA is a popular method with diverse applications including artifact removal in electrophysiology data, feature extraction in microarray data, and identifying brain networks in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). ICA can be viewed as a generalization of principal component analysis (PCA) that takes into account higher-order cross-correlations. Whereas the PCA solution is unique, there are many ICA methods-whose solutions may differ. Infomax, FastICA, and JADE are commonly applied to fMRI studies, with FastICA being arguably the most popular. Hastie and Tibshirani (2003) demonstrated that ProDenICA outperformed FastICA in simulations with two components. We introduce the application of ProDenICA to simulations with more components and to fMRI data. ProDenICA was more accurate in simulations, and we identified differences between biologically meaningful ICs from ProDenICA versus other methods in the fMRI analysis. ICA methods require nonconvex optimization, yet current practices do not recognize the importance of, nor adequately address sensitivity to, initial values. We found that local optima led to dramatically different estimates in both simulations and group ICA of fMRI, and we provide evidence that the global optimum from ProDenICA is the best estimate. We applied a modification of the Hungarian (Kuhn-Munkres) algorithm to match ICs from multiple estimates, thereby gaining novel insights into how brain networks vary in their sensitivity to initial values and ICA method., (© 2013, The International Biometric Society.)