Normal values and test-retest variability of stimulatedecho diffusion tensor imaging and fat fraction measurements in the muscle
British Journal of Radiology, ISSN: 1748-880X, Vol: 92, Issue: 1101, Page: 20190143
2019
- 13Citations
- 32Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes13
- 13
- CrossRef10
- Captures32
- Readers32
- 32
Article Description
Objectives: To assess the test-retest variability of both diffusion parameters and fat fraction (FF) estimates in normal muscle, and to assess differences in normal values between muscles in the thigh. Methods: 29 healthy volunteers (mean age 37 years, range 20-60 years, 17/29 males) completed the study. Magnetic resonance images of the mid-thigh were acquired using a stimulated echo acquisition mode-echoplanar imaging (STEAM-EPI) imaging sequence, to assess diffusion, and 2-point Dixon imaging, to assess FF. Imaging was repeated in 19 participants after a 30 min interval in order to assess test-retest variability of the measurements. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for test-retest variability were 0.99 [95% confidence interval, (CI): 0.98, 1] for FF, 0.94 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.97) for mean diffusivity and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.96) for fractional anisotropy (FA). FF was higher in the hamstrings than the quadriceps by a mean difference of 1.81% (95% CI:1.63, 2.00)%, p < 0.001. Mean diffusivity was significantly lower in the hamstrings than the quadriceps (0.26 (0.13, 0.39) x10 mms, p < 0.001) whereas fractional anisotropy was significantly higher in the hamstrings relative to the quadriceps with a mean difference of 0.063 (0.05, 0.07), p < 0.001. Conclusions: This study has shown excellent test-retest, variability in MR-based FF and diffusion measurements and demonstrated significant differences in these measures between hamstrings and quadriceps in the healthy thigh. Advances in knowledge: Test-retest variability is excellent for STEAM-EPI diffusion and 2-point Dixon-based FF measurements in the healthy muscle. Inter- and intraobserver variability were excellent for region of interest placement for STEAM-EPI diffusion and 2-point Dixonbased FF measurements in the healthy muscle. There are significant differences in FF and diffusion measurements between the hamstrings and quadriceps in the normal muscle.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85071485240&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20190143; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31298948; https://academic.oup.com/bjr/article/doi/10.1259/bjr.20190143/7449423; https://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20190143; https://www.birpublications.org/doi/10.1259/bjr.20190143
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know