Meeting Banner
Abstract #4245

The use of multi-vendor, multi-site 1H-MRS data acquired at 26 sites as a benchmark for MRS standardization: Comparison of quantification software

Michal Považan1,2, Mark Mikkelsen1,2, Adam Berrington1,2, Peter B. Barker1,2, Pallab K. Bhattacharyya3,4, Maiken K. Brix5, Pieter F. Buur6, Kim M. Cecil7, Kimberly L. Chan1,2, David Y.-T. Chen8, Alexander R. Craven9,10, Koen Cuypers11,12, Michael Dacko13, Niall W. Duncan14, Ulrike Dydak15,16, David A. Edmondson15,16, Gabriele Ende17, Lars Ersland9,10, Fei Gao18, Ian Greenhouse19, Ashley D. Harris20, Naying He21, Stefanie Heba22, Nigel Hoggard23, Tun-Wei Hsu24, Jacobus F.A. Jansen25, Alayar Kangarlu26,27, Thomas Lange13, R. Marc Lebel28, Yan Li21, Chien-Yuan E. Lin29, Jy-Kang Liou24, Jiing-Feng Lirng24, Feng Liu27, Joanna R. Long30,31, Ruoyun Ma15,32, Celine Maes11, Marta Moreno-Ortega33, Scott O. Murray34, Sean Noah35, Ralph Noeske36, Michael D. Noseworthy37, Georg Oeltzschner1,2, Eric C. Porges38,39, James J. Prisciandaro40, Nicolaas A.J. Puts1,2, Timothy P.L. Roberts41, Markus Sack17, Napapon Sailasuta42,43, Muhammad G. Saleh1,2, Michael-Paul Schallmo34,44, Nicholas Simard45, Diederick Stoffers6, Stephan P. Swinnen11,46, Martin Tegenthoff22, Peter Truong42, Guangbin Wang18, Iain D. Wilkinson23, Hans-Jörg Wittsack47, Adam J. Woods38,39, Hongmin Xu21, Fuhua Yan21, Chencheng Zhang48, Vadim Zipunnikov49, Helge J. Zöllner50, and Richard A.E. Edden1,2

1Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States, 2F. M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States, 3Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, United States, 4Radiology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States, 5Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, 6Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 7Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States, 8Department of Radiology, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan, 9Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 10NORMENT – Norwegian Center for Mental Disorders Research, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 11Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 12REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Hasselt University, Leuven, Belgium, 13Department of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany, 14Brain and Consciousness Research Centre, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, 15School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States, 16Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States, 17Department of Neuroimaging, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany, 18Shandong Medical Imaging Research Institute, Shandong University, Jinan, China, 19Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, berkeley, CA, United States, 20Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 21Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, 22Department of Neurology, BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Germany, 23Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 24Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University, School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, 25Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands, 26Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States, 27New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, United States, 28GE Healthcare, Calgary, AB, Canada, 29GE Healthcare, Taipei, Taiwan, 30Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 31National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Gainesville, FL, United States, 32Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States, 33Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, new york, NY, United States, 34Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States, 35Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States, 36GE Healthcare, Berlin, Germany, 37Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 38Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 39Center For Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 40Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States, 41Department of Radiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 42Research Imaging Centre, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada, 43Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 44Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States, 45School of Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 46Leuven Research Institute for Neuroscience & Disease (LIND), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 47Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf, Germany, 48Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, 49Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States, 50Institute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf, Germany

In vivo 1H-MRS is useful for studying neurological pathology, however its integration into clinical routine remains incomplete. Quantification of 1H-MRS data is affected by the analysis pipeline, but the source and extent of this bias is often unknown. Therefore, a large multi-vendor, multi-site dataset (n=296) was processed with an automated pipeline and three quantification software packages: LCModel, TARQUIN, and QUEST. Pearson’s correlation coefficient ranged from 0.66-0.88 for LCModel vs. TARQUIN and from 0.02-0.47 for QUEST vs. LCModel and QUEST vs. TARQUIN. A different baseline handling was the major potential source of variation between quantification software.

This abstract and the presentation materials are available to members only; a login is required.

Join Here