| Popis: |
Physiological noise reduction plays a critical role in spinal cord (SC) resting-state fMRI (rsfMRI).To reduce physiological noise and increase the robustness of SC rsfMRI by using an independent component analysis (ICA)-based nuisance regression (ICANR) method.Retrospective.Ten healthy subjects (female/male = 4/6, age = 27 ± 3 years, range 24-34 years).3T/gradient-echo echo planar imaging (EPI).We used three alternative methods (no regression [Nil], conventional region of interest [ROI]-based noise reduction method without ICA [ROI-based], and correction of structured noise using spatial independent component analysis [CORSICA]) to compare with the performance of ICANR. Reduction of the influence of physiological noise on the SC and the reproducibility of rsfMRI analysis after noise reduction were examined. The correlation coefficient (CC) was calculated to assess the influence of physiological noise. Reproducibility was calculated by intraclass correlation (ICC).Results from different methods were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc analysis.No significant difference in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pulsation influence or tissue motion influence were found (P = 0.223 in CSF, P = 0.2461 in tissue motion) in the ROI-based (CSF: 0.122 ± 0.020; tissue motion: 0.112 ± 0.015), and Nil (CSF: 0.134 ± 0.026; tissue motion: 0.124 ± 0.019). CORSICA showed a significantly stronger influence of CSF pulsation and tissue motion (CSF: 0.166 ± 0.045, P = 0.048; tissue motion: 0.160 ± 0.032, P = 0.048) than Nil. ICANR showed a significantly weaker influence of CSF pulsation and tissue motion (CSF: 0.076 ± 0.007, P = 0.0003; tissue motion: 0.081 ± 0.014, P = 0.0182) than Nil. The ICC values in the Nil, ROI-based, CORSICA, and ICANR were 0.669, 0.645, 0.561, and 0.766, respectively.ICANR more effectively reduced physiological noise from both tissue motion and CSF pulsation than three alternative methods. ICANR increases the robustness of SC rsfMRI in comparison with the other three methods.2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1421-1431. |
Plný text