TY - JOUR
T1 - Reproducibility of arterial spin labeling cerebral blood flow image processing
T2 - A report of the ISMRM open science initiative for perfusion imaging (OSIPI)_and the ASL MRI challenge
AU - Paschoal, Andre M.
AU - Woods, Joseph G.
AU - Pinto, Joana
AU - Bron, Esther E.
AU - Petr, Jan
AU - Kennedy McConnell, Flora A.
AU - Bell, Laura
AU - Dounavi, Maria-Eleni
AU - van Praag, Cassandra Gould
AU - Mutsaerts, Henk J. M. M.
AU - Taylor, Aaron Oliver
AU - Zhao, Moss Y.
AU - Brumer, Irène
AU - Chan, Wei Siang Marcus
AU - Toner, Jack
AU - Hu, Jian
AU - Zhang, Logan X.
AU - Domingos, Catarina
AU - Monteiro, Sara P.
AU - Figueiredo, Patrícia
AU - Harms, Alexander G. J.
AU - Padrela, Beatriz E.
AU - Tham, Channelle
AU - Abdalle, Ahmed
AU - Croal, Paula L.
AU - Anazodo, Udunna
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Purpose: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) is a widely used contrast-free MRI method for assessing cerebral blood flow (CBF). Despite the generally adopted ASL acquisition guidelines, there is still wide variability in ASL analysis. We explored this variability through the ISMRM-OSIPI ASL-MRI Challenge, aiming to establish best practices for more reproducible ASL analysis. Methods: Eight teams analyzed the challenge data, which included a high-resolution T1-weighted anatomical image and 10 pseudo-continuous ASL datasets simulated using a digital reference object to generate ground-truth CBF values in normal and pathological states. We compared the accuracy of CBF quantification from each team's analysis to the ground truth across all voxels and within predefined brain regions. Reproducibility of CBF across analysis pipelines was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), limits of agreement (LOA), and replicability of generating similar CBF estimates from different processing approaches. Results: Absolute errors in CBF estimates compared to ground-truth synthetic data ranged from 18.36 to 48.12 mL/100 g/min. Realistic motion incorporated into three datasets produced the largest absolute error and variability between teams, with the least agreement (ICC and LOA) with ground-truth results. Fifty percent of the submissions were replicated, and one produced three times larger CBF errors (46.59 mL/100 g/min) compared to submitted results. Conclusions: Variability in CBF measurements, influenced by differences in image processing, especially to compensate for motion, highlights the significance of standardizing ASL analysis workflows. We provide a recommendation for ASL processing based on top-performing approaches as a step toward ASL standardization.
AB - Purpose: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) is a widely used contrast-free MRI method for assessing cerebral blood flow (CBF). Despite the generally adopted ASL acquisition guidelines, there is still wide variability in ASL analysis. We explored this variability through the ISMRM-OSIPI ASL-MRI Challenge, aiming to establish best practices for more reproducible ASL analysis. Methods: Eight teams analyzed the challenge data, which included a high-resolution T1-weighted anatomical image and 10 pseudo-continuous ASL datasets simulated using a digital reference object to generate ground-truth CBF values in normal and pathological states. We compared the accuracy of CBF quantification from each team's analysis to the ground truth across all voxels and within predefined brain regions. Reproducibility of CBF across analysis pipelines was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), limits of agreement (LOA), and replicability of generating similar CBF estimates from different processing approaches. Results: Absolute errors in CBF estimates compared to ground-truth synthetic data ranged from 18.36 to 48.12 mL/100 g/min. Realistic motion incorporated into three datasets produced the largest absolute error and variability between teams, with the least agreement (ICC and LOA) with ground-truth results. Fifty percent of the submissions were replicated, and one produced three times larger CBF errors (46.59 mL/100 g/min) compared to submitted results. Conclusions: Variability in CBF measurements, influenced by differences in image processing, especially to compensate for motion, highlights the significance of standardizing ASL analysis workflows. We provide a recommendation for ASL processing based on top-performing approaches as a step toward ASL standardization.
KW - ASL
KW - cerebral blood flow
KW - challenges
KW - image analysis
KW - reproducibility
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85188566978&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/mrm.30081
DO - 10.1002/mrm.30081
M3 - Article
C2 - 38502108
SN - 0740-3194
VL - 92
SP - 836
EP - 852
JO - Magnetic resonance in medicine
JF - Magnetic resonance in medicine
IS - 2
ER -