ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Fast and reliable quantitative measures of white matter development with magnetic resonance fingerprinting.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Developmental cognitive neuroscience aims to shed light on evolving relationships between brain structure and cognitive development. To this end, quantitative methods that reliably measure individual differences in brain tissue properties are fundamental. Standard qualitative MRI sequences are influenced by scan parameters and hardware-related biases, and also lack physical units, making the analysis of individual differences problematic. In contrast, quantitative MRI can measure physical properties of the tissue but with the cost of long scan durations and sensitivity to motion. This poses a critical limitation for studying young children. Here, we examine the reliability and validity of an efficient quantitative multiparameter mapping method - Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) - in children scanned longitudinally. We focus on T1 values in white matter, since quantitative T1 values are known to primarily reflect myelin content, a key factor in brain development. Forty-nine children aged 8-13y (mean 10.3y ±1.4) completed two scanning sessions 2-4 months apart. In each session, two 2-minute 3D-MRF scans at 1mm isotropic resolution were collected to evaluate the effect of scan duration on image quality and scan-rescan reliability. A separate calibration scan was used to measure B0 inhomogeneity and correct for bias. We examined the impact of scan time and B0 inhomogeneity correction on scan-rescan reliability of values in white matter, by comparing single 2-min and combined two 2-min scans, with and without B0-correction. Whole-brain voxel-based reliability analysis showed that combining two 2-min MRF scans improved reliability (pearson's r=0.87) compared with a single 2-min scan (r=0.84), while B0-correction had no effect on reliability in white matter (r=0.86 and 0.83 4-min vs 2-min). Using diffusion tractography, we delineated MRF-derived T1 profiles along major white matter fiber tracts and found similar or higher reliability for T1 from MRF compared to diffusion parameters (based on a 10-minute dMRI scan). Lastly, we found that T1 values in multiple white matter tracts were significantly correlated with age. In sum, MRF-derived T1 values were highly reliable in a longitudinal sample of children and replicated known age effects. Reliability in white matter was improved by longer scan duration but was not affected by B0-correction, making it a quick and straightforward scan to collect. We propose that MRF provides a promising avenue for acquiring quantitative brain metrics in children and patient populations where scan time and motion are of particular concern.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.