Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025

Assessing Cortical Cerebral Microinfarcts on High Resolution MR Images
Published on: November 20, 2015
Radiologists' Rating for Comparative Qualitative Assessment of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Using Novel Analysis
Esha Baidya Kayal1, Devasenathipathy Kandasamy2, Richa Yadav2
1From the Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Objective:
The objective was to assess qualitative interpretability and quantitative precision and reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion ( IVIM) parametric images evaluated using novel IVIM analysis methods for diagnostic accuracy.
Methods:
Intravoxel incoherent motion datasets of 55 patients (male/female = 41:14; age = 17.8 ± 5.5 years) with histopathology-proven osteosarcoma were analyzed. Intravoxel incoherent motion parameters-diffusion coefficient ( D ), perfusion fraction ( f ), and perfusion coefficient ( D* )-were estimated using 5 IVIM analysis methods-(i) biexponential (BE) model, (ii) BE-segmented fitting 2-parameter (BESeg-2), (iii) BE-segmented fitting 1-parameter (BESeg-1), (iv) BE model with total variation penalty function (BE + TV), and (v) BE model with Huber penalty function (BE + HPF). Qualitative scoring in a 5-point Likert scale (uninterpretable: 1; poor: 2; fair: 3; good: 4; excellent: 5) was performed by 2 radiologists for 4 criteria: (a) tumor shape and margin, (b) morphologic correlation, (c) noise suppression, and (d) overall interpretability. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using Spearman rank-order correlation ( rs ). Precision and reproducibility were evaluated using within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) and between-subject coefficient of variation (bCV).
Results:
BE + TV and BE + HPF produced significantly ( P < 10 -3 ) higher qualitative scores for D (fair-good [3.3-3.8]) than BE (poor [2.3]) and for D* (poor-fair [2.2-2.7]) and f (fair-good [3.2-3.8]) than BE, BESeg-2, and BESeg-1 ( D* : uninterpretable-poor [1.3-1.9] and f : poor-fair [1.5-3]). Interobserver agreement for qualitative scoring was rs = 0.48-0.59, P < 0.009. BE + TV and BE + HPF showed significantly ( P < 0.05) improved reproducibility in estimating D (wCV: 24%-31%, bCV: 21%-31% improvement) than the BE method and D* (wCV: 4%-19%, bCV: 5%-19% improvement) and f (wCV: 25%-49%, bCV: 25%-47% improvement) than BE, BESeg-2, and BESeg-1 methods.
Conclusions:
BE + TV and BE + HPF demonstrated qualitatively and quantitatively improved IVIM parameter estimation and may be considered for clinical use further.
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT

