The impact of quality assurance assessment on diffusion tensor imaging outcomes in a large-scale population-based cohort

Abstract

Background Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is applied in investigation of brain biomarkers for neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. However, the quality of DTI measurements, like other neuroimaging techniques, is susceptible to several confounding factors (e.g. motion, eddy currents), which have only recently come under scrutiny. These confounds are especially relevant in adolescent samples where data quality may be compromised in ways that confound interpretation of maturation parameters. The current study aims to leverage DTI data from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC), a sample of 1,601 youths ages of 8–21 who underwent neuroimaging, to: 1) establish quality assurance (QA) metrics for the automatic identification of poor DTI image quality; 2) examine the performance of these QA measures in an external validation sample; 3) document the influence of data quality on developmental patterns of typical DTI metrics. Methods All diffusion-weighted images were acquired on the same scanner. Visual QA was performed on all subjects completing DTI; images were manually categorized as Poor, Good, or Excellent. Four image quality metrics were automatically computed and used to predict manual QA status: Mean voxel intensity outlier count (MEANVOX), Maximum voxel intensity outlier count (MAXVOX), mean relative motion (MOTION) and temporal signal-to-noise ratio (TSNR). Classification accuracy for each metric was calculated as the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). A threshold was generated for each measure that best differentiated visual QA status and applied in a validation sample. The effects of data quality on sensitivity to expected age effects in this developmental sample were then investigated using the traditional MRI diffusion metrics: fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD). Finally, our method of QA is compared to DTIPrep. Results TSNR (AUC=0.94) best differentiated Poor data from Good and Excellent data. MAXVOX (AUC=0.88) best differentiated Good from Excellent DTI data. At the optimal threshold, 88% of Poor data and 91% Good/Excellent data were correctly identified. Use of these thresholds on a validation dataset (n=374) indicated high accuracy. In the validation sample 83% of Poor data and 94% of Excellent data was identified using thresholds derived from the training sample. Both FA and MD were affected by the inclusion of poor data in an analysis of age, sex and race in a matched comparison sample. In addition, we show that the inclusion of poor data results in significant attenuation of the correlation between diffusion metrics (FA and MD) and age during a critical neurodevelopmental period. We find higher correspondence between our QA method and DTIPrep for Poor data, but we find our method to be more robust for apparently high-quality images. Conclusion Automated QA of DTI can facilitate large-scale, high-throughput quality assurance by reliably identifying both scanner and subject induced imaging artifacts. The results present a pra...

White Matter Microstructural Alterations in Children with ADHD: Categorical and Dimensional Perspectives

“…In contrast, other studies failed to identify any regional alteration, in either children or adults with ADHD compared with healthy controls, even with comparable sample sizes (Ercan et al, 2016;Yoncheva et al, 2016). Inconsistency might result from differences in scanning, data processing, and quality assurance protocols, differences in demographic characteristics of the participants, eg, age (Roalf et al, 2016), sex (Jacobson et al, 2015), medication history (de Luis-Garcia et al, 2015), as well as the heterogeneous nature of the disorder (Thapar and Cooper, 2015).…”

White matter microstructural deficits in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

“…Age and gender matched healthy individuals from the follow-up study to the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC; (Gur et al, 2012; Roalf et al, 2016; Satterthwaite et al, 2015) served as a comparison group. Matching was conducted in a similar manner as a previous study (Tang et al, 2016) using an optimizing algorithm (Konsake and Bergstralh, 2004) in SAS programming language.…”

“…DTI scans were obtained using a twice-refocused spin-echo (TRSE) single-shot EPI sequence (TR=8100 ms, TE =82 ms, FOV = 240mm 2 /240mm 2 ; Matrix= RL: 128/AP:128/Slices:70, in-plane resolution (x & y) 1.875mm 2 ; slice thickness=2 mm, gap=0; FlipAngle=90°/180°/180°, volumes=71, GRAPPA factor =3, bandwidth = 2170 Hz/pixel, PE direction = AP; 11 minutes) (Roalf et al, 2016; Satterthwaite et al, 2014a). The complete sequence consisted of 64 diffusion-weighted directions with b = 1000 s/mm 2 and 7 interspersed scans where b = 0 s/mm 2 (Satterthwaite et al, 2014a).…”

“…The complete sequence consisted of 64 diffusion-weighted directions with b = 1000 s/mm 2 and 7 interspersed scans where b = 0 s/mm 2 (Satterthwaite et al, 2014a). In addition, a B0 field map was acquired and used in the pre-processing (Roalf et al, 2016). …”

“…DTI quality control (QC), pre- and post-processing are published in detail elsewhere (Roalf et al, 2016) and in the Supplemental Methods. Briefly, images were first checked for data quality using manual and automated methods (Roalf et al, 2016).…”