AUTHOR=Wittens Mandy Melissa Jane , Allemeersch Gert-Jan , Sima Diana Maria , Naeyaert Maarten , Vanderhasselt Tim , Vanbinst Anne-Marie , Buls Nico , De Brucker Yannick , Raeymaekers Hubert , Fransen Erik , Smeets Dirk , van Hecke Wim , Nagels Guy , Bjerke Maria , de Mey Johan , Engelborghs Sebastiaan TITLE=Inter- and Intra-Scanner Variability of Automated Brain Volumetry on Three Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems in Alzheimer’s Disease and Controls JOURNAL=Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience VOLUME=13 YEAR=2021 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2021.746982 DOI=10.3389/fnagi.2021.746982 ISSN=1663-4365 ABSTRACT=

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has become part of the clinical routine for diagnosing neurodegenerative disorders. Since acquisitions are performed at multiple centers using multiple imaging systems, detailed analysis of brain volumetry differences between MRI systems and scan-rescan acquisitions can provide valuable information to correct for different MRI scanner effects in multi-center longitudinal studies. To this end, five healthy controls and five patients belonging to various stages of the AD continuum underwent brain MRI acquisitions on three different MRI systems (Philips Achieva dStream 1.5T, Philips Ingenia 3T, and GE Discovery MR750w 3T) with harmonized scan parameters. Each participant underwent two subsequent MRI scans per imaging system, repeated on three different MRI systems within 2 h. Brain volumes computed by icobrain dm (v5.0) were analyzed using absolute and percentual volume differences, Dice similarity (DSC) and intraclass correlation coefficients, and coefficients of variation (CV). Harmonized scans obtained with different scanners of the same manufacturer had a measurement error closer to the intra-scanner performance. The gap between intra- and inter-scanner comparisons grew when comparing scans from different manufacturers. This was observed at image level (image contrast, similarity, and geometry) and translated into a higher variability of automated brain volumetry. Mixed effects modeling revealed a significant effect of scanner type on some brain volumes, and of the scanner combination on DSC. The study concluded a good intra- and inter-scanner reproducibility, as illustrated by an average intra-scanner (inter-scanner) CV below 2% (5%) and an excellent overlap of brain structure segmentation (mean DSC > 0.88).