Harmen Reyngoudt1,2, Pierre-Yves Baudin1,2, Ericky C.A. Araujo1,2, Pierre G. Carlier3, and Benjamin Marty1,2
1NMR Laboratory, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, Institute of Myology, Paris, France, 2NMR Laboratory, CEA/DRF/IBFJ/MIRCen, Paris, France, 3CEA, DRF, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, Orsay, France
1NMR Laboratory, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, Institute of Myology, Paris, France, 2NMR Laboratory, CEA/DRF/IBFJ/MIRCen, Paris, France, 3CEA, DRF, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, Orsay, France
The differences in fat fraction distribution in
neuromuscular disorders, as assessed by simple statistical metrics such as
standard deviation, kurtosis and skewness, might reveal additional information
about the individual patient’s disease evolution and the
effects of treatment.
Fig. 3. FF histograms and MRI-based FF map in 4
examples of soleus muscle with very similar mean FF value, in 4 different NMDs
(DMD, DYS, IMB and IMNM).
Values for number of pixels in ROI (#pixels),
mean FF (M), median FF (Mdn), FF standard deviation (std), kurtosis (K) and
skewness (S) are presented as mean ± standard deviation, of all included muscles or
ROIs (indicated by n).
Fig. 1. Illustration of the individually drawn muscle ROIs
across 5 slices in the thigh and the leg: AL, adductor longus, AM, adductor magnus, BF,
biceps femoris, ED, extensor digitorum, GL, gastrocnemius lateralis, GM,
gastrocnemius medialis, GRA, gracilis, PER, peroneus, RF, rectus femoris, SAR,
sartorius, SM, semimembranosus, SOL, soleus, ST, semitendinosus, TA, tibialis anterior, TP, tibialis posterior, VI, vastus intermedius, VL, vastus lateralis, VM, vastus medialis.
