Publication: Inter-site validations of the Pixel-Wise method for cardiac T2* analysis in transfusion-dependent Thai thalassemia patients.
Issued Date
2012-02-01
Resource Type
ISSN
01252208
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84862287853
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. Vol.95 Suppl 2, (2012)
Suggested Citation
Pairash Saiviroonporn, Vip Viprakasit, Adisak Maneesai, Noppadol Siritanaratkul, Bunchoo Pongtanakul, John C. Wood, Rungroj Krittayaphong Inter-site validations of the Pixel-Wise method for cardiac T2* analysis in transfusion-dependent Thai thalassemia patients.. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. Vol.95 Suppl 2, (2012). Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/14988
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Inter-site validations of the Pixel-Wise method for cardiac T2* analysis in transfusion-dependent Thai thalassemia patients.
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
To compare inter-site observer variability of the Pixel- Wise (PW) method for cardiac T2* analysis in thalassemia patients using the mono-exponential with a constant fitting (offset) model and to compare the cross-model variability of the offset model to the mono-exponential (typical) model. Eighty-eight cardiac T2* measurements were performed on 72 Thalassemia major patients. Both bright- and black-blood techniques were acquired and analyzed at both the reference (REF) and local (LOC) sites using the PW method by defined region of interest on the whole (at the REF site) and partial (at the LOC site) septum. The offset model was analyzed at the reference site while both the offset and typical models were performed at the local site. The inter-site variability of the T2* values were analyzed by independent observers blinded to the results. The T2* values from the REF-offset, LOC-offset and LOC-typical methods were statistically comparable on both scanning techniques. The inter-site variations of the offset model were about 5.2% and 4.4% on the bright- and black-blood techniques, respectively, which was about 1.7% higher than from the intra-site, but was still in a reasonable range compared to the conventional method of around 5.4%. The cross-model comparisons presented with 0.4 ms of bias and variation of about 6.9% and 4.7%, respectively, which is about 1.4% higher than from the intra-site. The observer variability on the PW method using the offset or typical model provided equivalent coefficient of variation on both scanning techniques, which was also comparable to the previous reports. The inter-site variability of the offset and cross models was also in a reasonable range, being less than 2% higher than the intra-site with bias of about 0.4 ms.
