IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0332478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of processing and analysis methodology on thalamic susceptibility assessment in multiple sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Fahad Salman
  • Niels Bergsland
  • Michael G Dwyer
  • Jack A Reeves
  • Abhisri Ramesh
  • Dejan Jakimovski
  • Bianca Weinstock-Guttman
  • Robert Zivadinov
  • Ferdinand Schweser

Abstract

Background: Studies using quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) to investigate thalamic iron levels in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) have yielded inconsistent results. It has been speculated that cohort differences are responsible for these inconsistencies, leading to the phenomenological “early-rise late-decline” hypothesis, which posits that cohort age differences explain conflicting thalamic susceptibility findings. In a recent replication study, the authors failed to reproduce elevated thalamic susceptibility in pwMS previously reported by one of the only two QSM-based studies, despite matching cohort characteristics and processing, weakening the support for the phenomenological hypothesis. Objective: To investigate if the outcome of the recent replication study is robust with respect to different QSM algorithms and analysis methodologies. Methods: Using the same MRI dataset as the previous replication study, we assessed thalamic susceptibility across 83 pwMS and 44 healthy controls. To comprehensively evaluate methodological variability, we tested combinations of three background field removal (BFR) algorithms using various regularization parameters, four dipole inversion algorithms, three reference regions, and two segmentation methods. Each unique combination of a BFR algorithm (with its specific parameter) and a dipole inversion algorithm constituted a distinct pipeline, yielding a total of 19,558 susceptibility maps across 154 different pipelines. Results: Thalamic susceptibility was lower in pwMS compared to controls independent of the chosen methodology, with differences in effect sizes primarily driven by the background field removal algorithms and their regularization parameters, reference region, and segmentation method. The impact of dipole inversion algorithms was minimal. Conclusions: Our study suggests high reproducibility of group-level clinical studies using QSM to study the thalamus in pwMS. In particular, methodological differences in processing and analysis are unlikely to explain contradicting findings of thalamic susceptibility in MS.

Suggested Citation

  • Fahad Salman & Niels Bergsland & Michael G Dwyer & Jack A Reeves & Abhisri Ramesh & Dejan Jakimovski & Bianca Weinstock-Guttman & Robert Zivadinov & Ferdinand Schweser, 2025. "Impact of processing and analysis methodology on thalamic susceptibility assessment in multiple sclerosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0332478
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0332478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332478
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332478&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0332478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0332478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.