Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026
A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Fibromyalgia Pain and Physical Function, Using Brain Imaging Biomarkers
Published on: January 5, 2024
Reproducibility of functional MR imaging: preliminary results of prospective multi-institutional study performed by
Kelly H Zou1, Douglas N Greve, Meng Wang
1Surgical Planning Laboratory, Dept of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hosp, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. zou@bwh.harvard.edu
Purpose:
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.
Materials And 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.
Conclusion:
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.
