title: Reproducibility of functional MR imaging: preliminary results of prospective multi-institutional study performed by Biomedical Informatics Research Network.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To prospectively investigate the factors--including subject, brain hemisphere, study site, field strength, imaging unit vendor, imaging run, and examination visit--affecting the reproducibility of functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging activations based on a repeated sensory-motor (SM) task.
  
  
  METHODS
  The institutional review boards of all participating sites approved this HIPAA-compliant study. All subjects gave informed consent. Functional MR imaging data were repeatedly acquired from five healthy men aged 20-29 years who performed the same SM task at 10 sites. Five 1.5-T MR imaging units, four 3.0-T units, and one 4.0-T unit were used. The subjects performed bilateral finger tapping on button boxes with a 3-Hz audio cue and a reversing checkerboard. In a block design, 15-second epochs of alternating baseline and tasks yielded 85 acquisitions per run. Functional MR images were acquired with block-design echo-planar or spiral gradient-echo sequences. Brain activation maps standardized in a unit-sphere for the left and right hemispheres of each subject were constructed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve, intraclass correlation coefficients, multiple regression analysis, and paired Student t tests were used for statistical analyses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Significant factors were subject (P < .005), k-space (P < .005), and field strength (P = .02) for sensitivity and subject (P = .03) and k-space (P = .05) for specificity. At 1.5-T MR imaging, mean sensitivities ranged from 7% to 32% and mean specificities were higher than 99%. At 3.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 42% to 85% and from 96% to 99%, respectively. At 4.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 41% to 73% and from 95% to 99%, respectively. Mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (+/- their standard errors) were 0.77 +/- 0.05 at 1.5 T, 0.90 +/- 0.09 at 3.0 T, and 0.95 +/- 0.02 at 4.0 T, with significant differences between the 1.5- and 3.0-T examinations and between the 1.5- and 4.0-T examinations (P < .01 for both comparisons). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.49 to 0.71.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  MR imaging at 3.0- and 4.0-T yielded higher reproducibility across sites and significantly better results than 1.5-T imaging. The effects of subject, k-space, and field strength on examination reproducibility were significant.
authors.affiliation: Surgical Planning Laboratory, Dept of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hosp, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. zou@bwh.harvard.edu
authors.forename: Kelly H
authors.initials: KH
authors.lastname: Zou
authors.forename: Douglas N
authors.initials: DN
authors.lastname: Greve
authors.forename: Meng
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Steven D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Pieper
authors.forename: Simon K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Warfield
authors.forename: Nathan S
authors.initials: NS
authors.lastname: White
authors.forename: Sanjay
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Manandhar
authors.forename: Gregory G
authors.initials: GG
authors.lastname: Brown
authors.forename: Mark G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Vangel
authors.forename: Ron
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Kikinis
authors.forename: William M
authors.initials: WM
authors.lastname: Wells
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000465:Algorithms; D001931:Brain Mapping / Q000379:methods*; D005385:Fingers / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012372:ROC Curve; D012044:Regression Analysis; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity