Standardization of results is an important milestone in the maturation of any truly quantitative methodology. For instance, a lack of measurement agreement across imaging platforms limits multisite studies, between-study comparisons based on the literature, and inferences based on and the generalizability of results. In GABA-edited MEGA-PRESS, two key sources of differences between implementations are: differences in editing efficiency of GABA and the degree of co-editing of macromolecules (MM). In this work, GABA editing efficiency κ and MM-co-editing μ constants are determined for three widely used MEGA-PRESS implementations (on the most common MRI platforms; GE, Philips, and Siemens) by phantom experiments. Implementation-specific κ,μ-corrections were then applied to two in vivo datasets, one consisted of 8 subject scanned on the three platforms and the other one subject scanned eight times on each platform. Manufacturer-specific κ and μ values were determined as: κGE = 0.436, κSiemens = 0.366 and κPhilips = 0.394 and μGE = 0.83, μSiemens = 0.625 and μPhilips = 0.75. Applying the κ,μ-correction on the Cr-referenced data decreased the coefficient of variation (CV) of the data for both in vivo data sets (multisubjects: uncorrected CV = 13%, κ,μ-corrected CV = 5%, single subject: uncorrected CV = 23%, κ,μ-corrected CV = 13%) but had no significant effect on mean GABA levels. For the water-referenced results, CV increased in the multisubject data (uncorrected CV = 6.7%, κ,μ-corrected CV = 14%) while it decreased in the single subject data (uncorrected CV = 24%, κ,μ-corrected CV = 21%) and manufacturer was a significant source of variance in the κ,μ-corrected data. Applying a correction for editing efficiency and macromolecule contamination decreases the variance between different manufacturers for creatine-referenced data, but other sources of variance remain.
- Editing efficiency
- Macromolecular co-editing
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Biomedical Engineering
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging