Evidence Hub

The role of edema and demyelination in chronic T1 black holes: A quantitative magnetization transfer study

Ives R. Levesque, John G. Sled, Sridar Narayanan, Antônio Carlos dos Santos, Steven David Brass, Simon J. Francis, Douglas Lorne Arnold, G. Bruce Pike

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2005

10 participants · 61 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To use quantitative magnetization transfer imaging (qMTI) in an investigation of T1-weighted hypointensity observed in clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, which has previously been proposed as a more specific indicator of tissue damage than the more commonly detected T2 hyperintensity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 10 MS patients was performed using qMTI. A total of 60 MTI measurements were collected in each patient at a resolution of 2 x 2 x 7 mm, over a range of saturation pulses. The observed T1 and T2 were also measured. qMT model parameters were estimated using a voxel-by-voxel fit. RESULTS: A total of 65 T2-hyperintense lesions were identified; 53 were also T1 hypointense. In these black holes, the qMTI-derived semisolid pool fraction F correlated negatively with T(1,obs) (r2 = 0.76; P < 0.0001). The water pool absolute size (PDf) showed a weaker correlation with T(1,obs) (positive, r2 = 0.53; P < 0.0001). The magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) showed a similarly strong correlation with F and a weaker correlation with PDf (r2 = 0.18; P < 0.04). CONCLUSION: T1 increases in chronic black holes strongly correlated with the decline in semisolid pool size, and somewhat less to the confounding effect of edema. MTR was less sensitive than T(1,obs) to liquid pool changes associated with edema.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 10 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free