Center for the Developing Brain, Child Mind Institute, New York, NY, United States.
Department of Diagnostic Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, United States.
Neuroimage. 2021 Feb 1;226:117585. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117585. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
New large neuroimaging studies, such as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (ABCD) and Human Connectome Project (HCP) Development studies are adopting a new T1-weighted imaging sequence with prospective motion correction (PMC) in favor of the more traditional 3-Dimensional Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Gradient-Echo Imaging (MPRAGE) sequence. Here, we used a developmental dataset (ages 5-21, N = 348) from the Healthy Brain Network (HBN) Initiative to directly compare two widely used MRI structural sequences: one based on the Human Connectome Project (MPRAGE) and another based on the ABCD study (MPRAGE+PMC). We aimed to determine if the morphometric measurements obtained from both protocols are equivalent or if one sequence has a clear advantage over the other. The sequences were also compared through quality control measurements. Inter- and intra-sequence reliability were assessed with another set of participants (N = 71) from HBN that performed two MPRAGE and two MPRAGE+PMC sequences within the same imaging session, with one MPRAGE (MPRAGE1) and MPRAGE+PMC (MPRAGE+PMC1) pair at the beginning of the session and another pair (MPRAGE2 and MPRAGE+PMC2) at the end of the session. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) scores for morphometric measurements such as volume and cortical thickness showed that intra-sequence reliability is the highest with the two MPRAGE+PMC sequences and lowest with the two MPRAGE sequences. Regarding inter-sequence reliability, ICC scores were higher for the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE+PMC1 pair at the beginning of the session than the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE2 pair, possibly due to the higher motion artifacts in the MPRAGE2 run. Results also indicated that the MPRAGE+PMC sequence is robust, but not impervious, to high head motion. For quality control metrics, the traditional MPRAGE yielded better results than MPRAGE+PMC in 5 of the 8 measurements. In conclusion, morphometric measurements evaluated here showed high inter-sequence reliability between the MPRAGE and MPRAGE+PMC sequences, especially in images with low head motion. We suggest that studies targeting hyperkinetic populations use the MPRAGE+PMC sequence, given its robustness to head motion and higher reliability scores. However, neuroimaging researchers studying non-hyperkinetic participants can choose either MPRAGE or MPRAGE+PMC sequences, but should carefully consider the apparent tradeoff between relatively increased reliability, but reduced quality control metrics when using the MPRAGE+PMC sequence.
新的大型神经影像学研究,如青少年大脑认知发展研究(ABCD)和人类连接组计划(HCP)发展研究,正在采用一种新的带有前瞻性运动校正(PMC)的 T1 加权成像序列,以替代更传统的三维磁化准备快速梯度回波成像(MPRAGE)序列。在这里,我们使用来自健康大脑网络(HBN)倡议的一个发展数据集(年龄 5-21 岁,N=348),直接比较两种广泛使用的 MRI 结构序列:一种基于人类连接组计划(MPRAGE),另一种基于 ABCD 研究(MPRAGE+PMC)。我们旨在确定这两种方案获得的形态测量结果是否等效,或者一种序列是否明显优于另一种序列。通过质量控制测量还比较了两种序列。通过 HBN 的另一组参与者(N=71)进行了评估,这些参与者在同一成像会话中进行了两次 MPRAGE 和两次 MPRAGE+PMC 序列,一次 MPRAGE(MPRAGE1)和 MPRAGE+PMC(MPRAGE+PMC1)对在会话开始时,另一个对(MPRAGE2 和 MPRAGE+PMC2)在会话结束时。形态测量的组内和组间可靠性采用 HBN 的另一组参与者(N=71)进行了评估,这些参与者在同一成像会话中进行了两次 MPRAGE 和两次 MPRAGE+PMC 序列,一次 MPRAGE(MPRAGE1)和 MPRAGE+PMC(MPRAGE+PMC1)对在会话开始时,另一个对(MPRAGE2 和 MPRAGE+PMC2)在会话结束时。体积和皮质厚度等形态测量的组内相关系数(ICC)评分表明,两种 MPRAGE+PMC 序列的组内可靠性最高,两种 MPRAGE 序列的组内可靠性最低。关于组间可靠性,会话开始时的 MPRAGE1-MPRAGE+PMC1 对的 ICC 评分高于 MPRAGE1-MPRAGE2 对,这可能是由于 MPRAGE2 运行中的运动伪影更高。结果还表明,MPRAGE+PMC 序列对高头部运动具有稳健性,但并非不可穿透。对于质量控制指标,在 8 项测量中的 5 项中,传统的 MPRAGE 比 MPRAGE+PMC 产生了更好的结果。总之,这里评估的形态测量结果显示 MPRAGE 和 MPRAGE+PMC 序列之间具有高度的组间可靠性,尤其是在头部运动较小的图像中。我们建议针对多动人群的研究使用 MPRAGE+PMC 序列,因为它对头部运动具有稳健性和更高的可靠性评分。然而,研究非多动参与者的神经影像学研究人员可以选择 MPRAGE 或 MPRAGE+PMC 序列,但在使用 MPRAGE+PMC 序列时,应仔细考虑可靠性相对增加但质量控制指标降低的明显权衡。