HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2391050221v1 239/1/246    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Benner, T. Articles by Sorensen, A. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Benner, T. Articles by Sorensen, A. G.

Comparison of Manual and Automatic Section Positioning of Brain MR Images¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology (T.B., J.J.W., A.J.W.v.d.K., B.F., A.G.S.) and General Clinical Research Center (M.G.V.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Athinoula A. Martinos Center, Harvard Medical School, 149 13th St, Rm 2301, Charlestown, MA 02129; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass (B.F.); and Department of Neurology and Brain Tumor Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (F.H.H.). Received February 8, 2005; revision requested April 6; revision received May 4; final version accepted June 13. Supported in part by the National Center for Research Resources (P41 RR14075, R01 RR16594-01A1 and BIRN Morphometric Project BIRN002, U24 RR021382, R21 EB02530), the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01 EB001550), the National Cancer Institute (NCI 5T32CA09502), and the Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery Institute. Address correspondence to T.B. (e-mail: thomas.benner{at}nmr.mgh.harvard.edu).

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board and was in full compliance with HIPAA guidelines. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare intra- and intersubject variability of manual versus automatic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging section prescription. In two examinations, T2-weighted series were acquired with both methods. All intrasubject and three of six intersubject section prescription variances were significantly higher for manual prescription (P < .01). Root mean square errors confirmed better coregistration of the automated approach (P < .001). Automatic section prescription leads to improved reproducibility of imaging orientations for intra- and intersubject series in clinical practice.

© RSNA, 2006