University of Sussex
Browse
Bouyagoub2020_Article_ComparingMultibandAndSingleban.pdf (4.28 MB)

Comparing multiband and singleband EPI in NODDI at 3T: what are the implications for reproducibility and study sample sizes?

Download (4.28 MB)
Version 2 2023-06-12, 09:37
Version 1 2023-06-09, 22:23
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-12, 09:37 authored by Samira BouyagoubSamira Bouyagoub, Nicholas DowellNicholas Dowell, Matthew Gabel, Mara Cercignani
Objective The reproducibility of Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) metrics from time-saving multiband (MB) EPI compared with singleband (SB) has not been considered. This study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of NODDI parameters from SB and MB acquisitions, determine the agreement between acquisitions and estimate the sample sizes required to detect between-group change. Methods Brain diffusion MRI data were acquired using SB and MB (acceleration factors 2 (MB2) and 3 (MB3)) on 8 healthy subjects on 2 separate visits. NODDI maps of isotropic volume fraction (FISO), neurite density (NDI) and orientation dispersion index (ODI) were estimated. Region-of-interest analysis was performed; variability across subjects and visits was measured using coefficients of variation (CoV). Intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis were performed to assess reproducibility and detect any systematic bias between SB, MB2 and MB3. Power calculations were used to determine sample sizes required to detect group differences. Results Both NDI and ODI were reproducible between visits; however, FISO was variable. All parameters were not reproducible across methods; a systematic bias was observed with the derived values decreasing as the MB factor increases. The number of subjects needed to detect a between-group change is not significantly different between methods; however, ODI needs considerably higher sample sizes than NDI. Conclusions Both SB and MB yield highly reproducible NDI and ODI measures, but direct comparison of these parameters between methods is complicated by systematic differences that exist between the two approaches.

History

Publication status

  • Published

File Version

  • Published version

Journal

Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

ISSN

0968-5243

Publisher

Springer Verlag

Department affiliated with

  • BSMS Neuroscience Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2020-12-09

First Open Access (FOA) Date

2021-01-14

First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date

2020-12-08

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC