Is it time to switch your T1W sequence? Assessing the impact of prospective motion correction on the reliability and quality of structural imaging.

Publication Type	Academic Article
Authors	Ai L, Craddock R, Tottenham N, Dyke J, Lim R, Colcombe S, Milham M, Franco A
Journal	Neuroimage
Volume	226
Pagination	117585
Date Published	11/26/2020
ISSN	1095-9572
Keywords	Brain, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract	New large neuroimaging studies, such as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (ABCD) and Human Connectome Project (HCP) Development studies are adopting a new T1-weighted imaging sequence with prospective motion correction (PMC) in favor of the more traditional 3-Dimensional Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Gradient-Echo Imaging (MPRAGE) sequence. Here, we used a developmental dataset (ages 5-21, N = 348) from the Healthy Brain Network (HBN) Initiative to directly compare two widely used MRI structural sequences: one based on the Human Connectome Project (MPRAGE) and another based on the ABCD study (MPRAGE+PMC). We aimed to determine if the morphometric measurements obtained from both protocols are equivalent or if one sequence has a clear advantage over the other. The sequences were also compared through quality control measurements. Inter- and intra-sequence reliability were assessed with another set of participants (N = 71) from HBN that performed two MPRAGE and two MPRAGE+PMC sequences within the same imaging session, with one MPRAGE (MPRAGE1) and MPRAGE+PMC (MPRAGE+PMC1) pair at the beginning of the session and another pair (MPRAGE2 and MPRAGE+PMC2) at the end of the session. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) scores for morphometric measurements such as volume and cortical thickness showed that intra-sequence reliability is the highest with the two MPRAGE+PMC sequences and lowest with the two MPRAGE sequences. Regarding inter-sequence reliability, ICC scores were higher for the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE+PMC1 pair at the beginning of the session than the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE2 pair, possibly due to the higher motion artifacts in the MPRAGE2 run. Results also indicated that the MPRAGE+PMC sequence is robust, but not impervious, to high head motion. For quality control metrics, the traditional MPRAGE yielded better results than MPRAGE+PMC in 5 of the 8 measurements. In conclusion, morphometric measurements evaluated here showed high inter-sequence reliability between the MPRAGE and MPRAGE+PMC sequences, especially in images with low head motion. We suggest that studies targeting hyperkinetic populations use the MPRAGE+PMC sequence, given its robustness to head motion and higher reliability scores. However, neuroimaging researchers studying non-hyperkinetic participants can choose either MPRAGE or MPRAGE+PMC sequences, but should carefully consider the apparent tradeoff between relatively increased reliability, but reduced quality control metrics when using the MPRAGE+PMC sequence.
DOI	10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117585
PubMed ID	33248256
PubMed Central ID	PMC7898192