Effectiveness of GRAPPA-Assisted Head Immobilization in Enhancing Diagnostic Confidence and Interobserver Agreement in Routine Adult Brain MRI: A Prospective Paired Study

Fatima Ibrahim Assi; Fezaa Shalal Neda; Abdullateef Aliasghar Mustafa

doi:10.54133/ajms.v11i2.3156

Authors

Fatima Ibrahim Assi Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7313-2955
Fezaa Shalal Neda Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
Abdullateef Aliasghar Mustafa Department of Medicine, Radiology Division, College of Medicine, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54133/ajms.v11i2.3156

Keywords:

Brain MRI, Diagnostic confidence, GRAPPA

Abstract

Background: Motion artifacts in brain MRI may reduce image interpretability and diagnostic confidence. Motion-reduction strategies should be evaluated using blinded radiologist assessment and interobserver agreement. Objective: To assess the effect of simple head immobilization combined with Generalized Autocalibrating Partially Parallel Acquisitions (GRAPPA) acceleration on motion artifact assessment, diagnostic confidence, and interobserver agreement in brain MRI. Methods: This prospective study included 38 adults who underwent standard and intervention diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and axial T2-weighted imaging during a single session. The intervention combined foam padding, forehead fixation, and GRAPPA acceleration. Two blinded radiologists assessed motion artifacts and diagnostic confidence. Results: The intervention significantly enhanced both sequences' image quality and diagnostic confidence as rated by the radiologists. In DWI, no-artifact ratings for Radiologist 1 increased from 0.0% to 55.3% and for Radiologist 2 from 5.3% to 60.5%, while very high diagnostic confidence increased from 10.5% to 63.2% and from 7.9% to 71.1% (p=0.0001). In axial T2-weighted imaging, no-artifact ratings increased from 2.6% to 63.2% and from 7.9% to 60.5%, while very high diagnostic confidence increased from 7.9% to 60.5% and from 26.3% to 73.7% (p=0.0001). These results indicate that the reduction in motion led to a clinically significant improvement in the consistency of image interpretation. Cohen's kappa for diagnostic confidence was almost perfect and remained stable in DWI (0.941 to 0.944) and increased in axial T2-weighted imaging (0.469 to 0.964). Conclusions: GRAPPA-assisted head immobilization improved image quality and diagnostic confidence in routine adult brain MRI, supporting strong diagnostic confidence and acceptable interobserver agreement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Runge VM, Richter JK, Heverhagen JT. Motion in magnetic resonance: new paradigms for improved clinical diagnosis. Invest Radiol. 2019;54(7):383-395. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000566

Slipsager JM, Glimberg SL, Søgaard J, Paulsen RR, Johannesen HH, Martens PC, et al. Quantifying the financial savings of motion correction in brain MRI: a model-based estimate of the costs arising from patient head motion and potential savings from implementation of motion correction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;52(3):731-738. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27112

Havsteen I, Ohlhues A, Madsen KH, Nybing JD, Christensen H, Christensen A. Are movement artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging a real problem? A narrative review. Front Neurol. 2017;8:232. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00232

Hamilton J, Franson D, Seiberlich N. Recent advances in parallel imaging for MRI. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2017;101:71-95. doi: 10.1016/j.pnmrs.2017.04.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnmrs.2017.04.002

Sheng J, Shi Y, Zhang Q. Improved parallel magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction with multiple variable density sampling. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):9005. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-88567-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88567-z

Runge VM, Richter JK, Heverhagen JT. Speed in clinical magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol. 2017;52(1):1-17. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000330

Power JD, Silver BM, Silverman MR, Ajodan EL, Bos DJ, Jones RM. Customized head molds reduce motion during resting state fMRI scans. NeuroImage. 2019;189:141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.016

Salih S, Abdulaal O, Gameraddin M, Alhasan M, Hasaneen M. Impact of extended pre-scan written instructions on motion artifacts during head magnetic resonance imaging. J Med Life. 2022;15(9):1181-1187. doi: 10.25122/jml-2022-0133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2022-0133

Dosenbach NUF, Koller JM, Earl EA, Miranda-Dominguez O, Klein RL, Van AN, et al. Real-time motion analytics during brain MRI improve data quality and reduce costs. NeuroImage. 2017;161:80-93. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.025

Vos SB, Micallef C, Barkhof F, Hill A, Winston GP, Ourselin S, et al. Evaluation of prospective motion correction of high-resolution 3D-T2-FLAIR acquisitions in epilepsy patients. J Neuroradiol. 2018;45(6):368-373. doi: 10.1016/j.neurad.2018.02.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2018.02.007

Li M, Gao Q, Yu T. Kappa statistic considerations in evaluating inter-rater reliability between two raters: which, when and context matters. BMC Cancer. 2023;23:799. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11325-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11325-z

Geijer M, Båth M, Wessman C. Some common statistical methods for assessing rater agreement in radiological studies. Acta Radiol. 2025;66(6):675-683. doi: 10.1177/02841851251319666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851251319666

Park JE, Han K, Sung YS, Chung MS, Koo HJ, Yoon HM, et al. Selection and reporting of statistical methods to assess reliability of a diagnostic test: conformity to recommended methods in a peer-reviewed journal. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(6):888-897. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888

Godenschweger F, Kägebein U, Stucht D, Yarach U, Sciarra A, Yakupov R, et al. Motion correction in MRI of the brain. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(5):R32-R56. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/5/R32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/5/R32

Krause F, Benjamins C, Eck J, Lührs M, van Hoof R, Goebel R. Active head motion reduction in magnetic resonance imaging using tactile feedback. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019;40(14):4026–4037. doi: 10.1002/hbm.24683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24683

Jolly E, Sadhukha S, Chang LJ. Custom-molded headcases have limited efficacy in reducing head motion during naturalistic fMRI experiments. Neuroimage. 2020;222:117207. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117207

Mekiš V, Žager Marciuš V, Rogina D, Dolenc L, Mekiš N. Comparison of treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup in intracranial MRI radiotherapy simulation. Strahlenther Onkol. 2021;197(7):614–621. doi: 10.1007/s00066-021-01776-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-021-01776-3

Laib Z, Sid FA, Abed-Meraim K, Ouldali A. Estimation error bound for GRAPPA diffusion-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;74:181–194. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2020.09.022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2020.09.022

Rabanillo I, Aja-Fernández S, Alberola-López C, Hernando D. Exact calculation of noise maps and g-factor in GRAPPA using a k-space analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;37(2):480–490. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2017.2760921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2017.2760921

Aranovitch A, Haeberlin M, Gross S, Dietrich BE, Wilm BJ, Brunner DO, et al. Prospective motion correction with NMR markers using only native sequence elements. Magn Reson Med. 2018;79(4):2046–2056. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26877

Tisdall MD, Reuter M, Qureshi A, Buckner RL, Fischl B, van der Kouwe AJW. Prospective motion correction with volumetric navigators reduces the bias and variance in brain morphometry induced by subject motion. Neuroimage. 2016;127:11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.054

Benchoufi M, Matzner-Løber E, Molinari N, Jannot AS, Soyer P. Interobserver agreement issues in radiology. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020;101(10):639–641. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.09.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2020.09.001

Dettori JR, Norvell DC. Kappa and beyond: is there agreement? Glob Spine J. 2020;10(4):499–501. doi: 10.1177/2192568220911648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220911648

Zec S, Soriani N, Comoretto R, Baldi I. High agreement and high prevalence: the paradox of Cohen’s kappa. Open Nurs J. 2017;11:211–218. doi: 10.2174/1874434601711010211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874434601711010211

Vanbelle S, Hernandez Engelhart C, Blix E. A comprehensive guide to study the agreement and reliability of multi-observer ordinal data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024;24(1):310. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02431-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02431-y