On Comparability and Reproducibility of Myelin Sensitive Imaging Techniques
Tom Hilbert1,2,3, Lucas Soustelle4, Gian Franco Piredda1,2,3, Thomas Troalen5, Stefan Sommer6,7, Arun Joseph8,9,10, Reto Meuli2, Jean-Philippe Thiran2,3, Guillaume Duhamel4, Olivier M. Girard4, and Tobias Kober1,2,3
1Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology (ACIT), Siemens Healthcare, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland, 3LTS5, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 4Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, CRMBM, Marseille, France, 5Siemens Healthcare SAS, Saint-Denis, France, 6Siemens Healthcare, Zurich, Switzerland, 7Swiss Center for Musculoskeletal Imaging (SCMI), Balgrist Campus, Zurich, Switzerland, 8Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology (ACIT), Siemens Healthcare, Bern, Switzerland, 9Translational Imaging Center, Sitem-Insel, Bern, Switzerland, 10Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Longitudinal relaxation rate and magnetization transfer-based methods showed good correlation between each other. Myelin water fraction and ultra-short-echo-time imaging appears to show a different contrast. All methods showed good reproducibility.
Figure 1: Example images from one subject in the three orthogonal views. The red arrows indicate the genu of the corpus callosum where in some methods a common hyperintensity was observed. R1 – longitudinal relaxation rate, MTR – Magnetization Transfer Ratio, MPF – Macromolecular Proton Fraction, ihMTSat – Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer saturation, MWF – Myelin Water Fraction, IR-UTE – Inversion Recovery Ultra-Short Time-to-Echo.
Figure 3: Agreement and Bland-Altman plots for each method that show the reproducibility of each method. Colours indicate different tissue types: blue - brain structures, red - ventricles, yellow - gray matter, purple - white matter.