Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Sample MR image section depicting gradient-echo magnitude (A), raw phase (B), and quantitative susceptibility map (C) with ROIs outlined in the caudate nucleus, putamen, globus pallidus, and thalamus.
- Fig 2.
Quantitative susceptibility values in the putamen (A) and thalamus (B) across healthy controls and multiple sclerosis subtypes. Lower thalamic susceptibility values are observed in the RRMS compared with PPMS and HC groups. ppb indicates parts per billion.
- Fig 3.
The relationship between clinical disability and quantitative susceptibility values in the putamen and thalamus across PPMS and RRMS groups. X-axes indicate EDSS, while y-axes indicate quantitative susceptibility values in parts per billion. A positive correlation between EDSS and putaminal quantitative susceptibility values is present in both the RRMS (A) and PPMS (B) groups. In the thalamus, a negative correlation between EDSS and quantitative susceptibility is present only in the RRMS group (C), while no correlation is observed in the PPMS group (D).
Tables
- Table 1:
Demographic and clinical data and conventional MRI metrics in HC, RRMS, RREM, and PPMS groupsa
HC 20 (8/12) RRMS 80 (32/48) RREM MS 40 (16/24) PPMS 24 (9/15) P Valueb PPMS vs RRMS (RREM) HC vs RRMS (RREM) HC vs PPMS Age (yr) 48.0 (7.3) 46.9 (7.0) 48.6 (7.0) 47.4 (6.8) .72 (.72) .72 (.72) .72 Disease duration (yr) – 12.4 (10.7) 13.2 (11.0) 7.7 (3.3) .006c (.006)c – – EDSSd – 2.5 (2.5) 4 (0.6) 4.5 (1.6) <.001c (.173) – – T1LLd – 1.1 (1.1) 1.4 (1.6) 1.8 (3.3) .023c (.276) – – T2LLd – 2.1 (4.9) 3.6 (7.2) 2.8 (10.6) .431 (.923) – – BPF (%) 86.2 (1.5) 84.2 (2.4) 83.8 (2.4) 84.7 (3.0) .490 (.490) <.001 (<.001) .08 CCV (cm3) 4.6 (0.6) 4.1 (0.7) 4.0 (0.7) 4.1 (0.8) .690 (.690) .004 (.001) .013 Note:— – indicates not relevant.
↵a The number of participants and the female/male ratio are reported for each group. Unless otherwise indicated, data are reported as mean (SD). Numbers in parentheses in the headers of columns 2–5 are No. of subjects in groups (F/M).
↵b Pair-wise comparison (P value). Differences among HC, PPMS, and RRMS (RREM) groups were tested using a t test or Mann-Whitney U test with nonpooled SD (Benjamini-Hochberg correction).
↵c Significant.
↵d Mann-Whitney U test with nonpooled SD (Benjamini-Hochberg correction) (median and interquartile range).
DGM Structure QS (ppb) HC RRMS RREM MS PPMS Pair-wise Comparison (P Value)b PPMS vs RRMS (RREM) HC vs RRMS (RREM) HC vs PPMS CN 32.6 (9.5) 35.0 (9.6) 38.3 (10.1) 36.8 (6.8) .390 (.470) .390 (.230) .230 GP 66.7 (8.5) 71.9 (14.0) 72.4 (14.1) 70.8 (13.0) .860 (.860) .170 (.170) .420 Put 20.3 (5.4) 24.3 (10.7) 27.7 (10.3) 28.1 (10.5) .158 (.899) .042c (.003)c .009c Thal 5.9 (3.3) 2.6 (4.9) 2.0 (5.7) 5.6 (3.9) .007c (.007)c .004c (.004)c .757 - Table 3:
Correlations of QS values in DGM with conventional MRI parameters in the RRMS and PPMS groups
DGM Region T1LL T2LL BPF CCV rs P Value rs P Value rs P Value rs P Value RRMS CN −0.09 .44 −0.07 .56 −0.01 .96 −0.05 .63 GP 0.02 .85 0.07 .53 −0.00 .99 −0.10 .37 Put 0.14 .23 0.12 .30 −0.20 .08 −0.21 .06 Thal −0.36 .001a −0.35 .001a 0.23 .04a 0.25 .02a PPMS CN −0.13 .55 −0.16 .46 0.05 .80 0.02 .93 GP 0.07 .75 0.09 .69 −0.03 .86 0.06 .79 Put 0.25 .25 0.36 .09 −0.28 .18 −0.16 .47 Thal −0.04 .85 0.03 .90 0.14 .52 0.11 .60 Note:—rs indicates Spearman correlation coefficient; Thal, thalamus.
↵a Significant.
