Hot Topics in Functional Neuroradiology

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Wang W,
   2. Qin W,
   3. Hao N,
   4. et al

   . Diffusion tensor imaging in spinal cord compression. Acta Radiol 2012;53:921–28

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Sato T,
   2. Horikoshi T,
   3. Watanabe A,
   4. et al

   . Evaluation of cervical myelopathy using apparent diffusion coefficient measured by diffusion-weighted imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:388–92

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Mohamed F,
   2. Hunter L,
   3. Barakat N,
   4. et al

   . Diffusion tensor imaging of the pediatric spinal cord at 1.5 T: preliminary results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:339–45

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Barakat N,
   2. Mohamed F,
   3. Hunter L,
   4. et al

   . Diffusion tensor imaging of the normal pediatric spinal cord using an inner-field of view echo-planar imaging sequence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1127–33

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Mulcahey MJ,
   2. Samdani A,
   3. Gaughan J,
   4. et al

   . Diffusion tensor imaging in pediatric spinal cord injury: preliminary examination of reliability and clinical correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E797–803

   CrossRef
6. 6.↵
   1. Jensen JH,
   2. Helpern JA,
   3. Ramani A,
   4. et al

   . Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:1432–40

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Lu H,
   2. Jensen JH,
   3. Ramani A,
   4. et al

   . Three-dimensional characterization of non-gaussian water diffusion in humans using diffusion kurtosis imaging. NMR Biomed 2006;19:236–47

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Jensen JH,
   2. Helpern JA

   . Progress in diffusion-weighted imaging: concepts, techniques and applications to the central nervous system. NMR Biomed 2010;23:659–60

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Raab P,
   2. Hattingen E,
   3. Franz K,
   4. et al

   . Cerebral gliomas: diffusional kurtosis imaging analysis of microstructural differences. Radiology 2010;254:876–81

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Van Cauter S,
    2. Veraart J,
    3. Sijbers J,
    4. et al

    . Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 2012;263:492–501

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Rosenkrantz AB,
    2. Sigmund EE,
    3. Johnson G,
    4. et al

    . Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 2012;264:126–35

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Jensen JH,
    2. Falangola MF,
    3. Hu C,
    4. et al

    . Preliminary observations of increased diffusional kurtosis in human brain following recent cerebral infarction. NMR Biomed 2011;24:452–57

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Hui ES,
    2. Fieremans E,
    3. Jensen JH,
    4. et al

    . Stroke assessment with diffusional kurtosis imaging. Stroke 2012;43:2968–73

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Helpern JA,
    2. Adisetiyo V,
    3. Falangola MF,
    4. et al

    . Preliminary evidence of altered gray and white matter microstructural development in the frontal lobe of adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a diffusional kurtosis imaging study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;33:17–23

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Gao Y,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Wong CS,
    4. et al

    . Diffusion abnormalities in temporal lobes of children with temporal lobe epilepsy: a preliminary diffusional kurtosis imaging study and comparison with diffusion tensor imaging. NMR Biomed 2012;25:1369–77

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Blockx I,
    2. Verhoye M,
    3. Van Audekerke J,
    4. et al

    . Identification and characterization of Huntington related pathology: an in vivo DKI imaging study. Neuroimage 2012;63:653–62

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Grossman EJ,
    2. Ge Y,
    3. Jensen JH,
    4. et al

    . Thalamus and cognitive impairment in mild traumatic brain injury: a diffusional kurtosis imaging study. J Neurotrauma 2012;29:2318–27

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Hori M,
    2. Fukunaga I,
    3. Masutani Y,
    4. et al

    . New diffusion metrics for spondylotic myelopathy at an early clinical stage. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1797–802

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Prentice RI

    . Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8:431–40

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Berger VW

    . Does the Prentice criterion validate surrogate endpoints? Stat Med 2004;23:1571–78

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Ioannidis JP,
    2. Panagiotou OA

    . Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA 2011;305:2200–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Lu A,
    2. Atkinson IC,
    3. Claiborne T,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative sodium imaging with a flexible twisted projection pulse sequence. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:1583–93

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Harris RK,
    2. Wasylishen RE

    1. Lu A,
    2. Atkinson IC,
    3. Thulborn KR

    . Sodium magnetic resonance imaging and its bioscale of tissue sodium concentration. In: Harris RK, Wasylishen RE , eds. Encyclopedia of Magnetic Resonance. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley; September 15, 2010.
24. 24.↵
    1. Thulborn KR,
    2. Davis D,
    3. Snyder J,
    4. et al

    . Sodium MR imaging of acute and subacute stroke for assessment of tissue viability. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2005 15:639–53

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Thulborn KR,
    2. Lu A,
    3. Atkinson IC,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative sodium MR imaging and sodium bioscales for the management of brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009;19:615–24

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Robitaille P-M,
    2. Berliner LJ

    1. Thulborn KR

    . The challenges of integrating a 9.4T MR scanner for human brain imaging. In: Robitaille P-M, Berliner LJ , eds. Ultra High Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging. New York: Springer-Verlag Science and Business Media: 2006:105–26
27. 27.↵
    1. Biswal B,
    2. Yetkin FZ,
    3. Haughton VM,
    4. et al

    . Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:537–41

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Beckmann CF,
    2. DeLuca M,
    3. Devlin JT,
    4. et al

    . Investigations into resting-state connectivity using independent component analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005;360:1001–13

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. van den Heuvel MP,
    2. Mandl RC,
    3. Kahn RS,
    4. et al

    . Functionally linked resting-state networks reflect the underlying structural connectivity architecture of the human brain. Hum Brain Mapp 2009;30:3127–41

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Damoiseaux JS,
    2. Rombouts SA,
    3. Barkhof F,
    4. et al

    . Consistent resting-state networks across healthy subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:13848–53

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Van Dijk KR,
    2. Hedden T,
    3. Venkataraman A,
    4. et al

    . Intrinsic functional connectivity as a tool for human connectomics: theory, properties, and optimization. J Neurophysiol 2010;103:297–321

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    1. Fox MD,
    2. Snyder AZ,
    3. Zacks JM,
    4. et al

    . Coherent spontaneous activity accounts for trial-to-trial variability in human evoked brain responses. Nat Neuroc 2006;9:23–5

    CrossRef
33. 33.↵
    1. Fox MD,
    2. Greicius M

    . Clinical applications of resting state functional connectivity. Front Syst Neurosci 2010;4:19

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Spreng RN,
    2. Sepulcre J,
    3. Turner GR,
    4. et al

    . Intrinsic architecture underlying the relations among the default, dorsal attention, and fronto-parietal control networks of the human brain. J Cogn Neurosci 2013;25:74–86

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Petrella JR,
    2. Sheldon FC,
    3. Prince SE,
    4. et al

    . Default mode network connectivity in stable vs progressive mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 2011;76:511–17

    CrossRef
36. 36.↵
    1. Pievani M,
    2. de Haan W,
    3. Wu T,
    4. et al

    . Functional network disruption in the degenerative dementias. Lancet Neurol 2011;10:829–43

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    1. Guo WB,
    2. Liu F,
    3. Chen JD,
    4. et al

    . Abnormal neural activity of brain regions in treatment-resistant and treatment-sensitive major depressive disorder: a resting-state fMRI study. J Psychiatr Res 2012;46:1366–73

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Stufflebeam SM,
    2. Liu H,
    3. Sepulcre J,
    4. et al

    . Localization of focal epileptic discharges using functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2011;114:1693–97

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Zhang D,
    2. Johnston JM,
    3. Fox MD,
    4. et al

    . Preoperative sensorimotor mapping in brain tumor patients using spontaneous fluctuations in neuronal activity imaged with functional magnetic resonance imaging: initial experience. Neurosurgery 2009;65(6 suppl):226–36

    PubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. Breshears JD,
    2. Gaona CM,
    3. Roland JL,
    4. et al

    . Mapping sensorimotor cortex with slow cortical potential resting-state networks while awake and under anestheia. Neurosurgery 2012;71:305–16

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Mueller S,
    2. Wang D,
    3. Fox MD,
    4. et al

    . Individual variability in functional connectivity architecture of the human brain. Neuron 2013;77:586–95

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    1. Power JD,
    2. Barnes KA,
    3. Snyder AZ,
    4. et al

    . Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage 2012;59:2142–54

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    1. Hallquist MN,
    2. Hwang K,
    3. Luna B

    . The nuisance of nuisance regression: Spectral misspecification in a common approach to resting-state fMRI preprocessing reintroduces noise and obscures functional connectvity. Neuroimage 2013;82:208–25

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
44. 44.↵
    1. Raichle ME,
    2. MacLeod AM,
    3. Snyder AZ,
    4. et al

    . A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:676–82

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    1. Attwell D,
    2. Laughlin SB

    . An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brain. Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2001;21:1133–45

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
46. 46.↵
    1. Tuor UI,
    2. Farrar JK

    . Pial vessel caliber and cerebral blood flow during hemorrhage and hypercapnia in the rabbit. Am J Physiol 1984;247(1 pt 2):H40–51
47. 47.↵
    1. Hamilton NB,
    2. Attwell D,
    3. Hall CN

    . Pericyte-mediated regulation of capillary diameter: a component of neurovascular coupling in health and disease. Front Neuroenergetics 2010;2. pii
48. 48.↵
    1. Fisher CM

    . Occlusion of the carotid arteries: further experiences. AMA Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1954;72:187–204

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Fierstra J,
    2. Poublanc J,
    3. Han JS,
    4. et al

    . Steal physiology is spatially associated with cortical thinning. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;81:290–93

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
50. 50.↵
    1. Fierstra J,
    2. Maclean DB,
    3. Fisher JA,
    4. et al

    . Surgical revascularization reverses cerebral cortical thinning in patients with severe cerebrovascular steno-occlusive disease. Stroke 2011;42:1631–37

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
51. 51.↵
    1. Marshall RS,
    2. Festa JR,
    3. Cheung YK,
    4. et al

    . Cerebral hemodynamics and cognitive impairment: baseline data from the RECON trial. Neurology 2012;78:250–55

    CrossRef
52. 52.↵
    Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke: results of an international randomized trial—the EC/IC Bypass Study Group. N Engl J Med 1985;313:1191–200

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
53. 53.↵
    1. Blaser T,
    2. Hofmann K,
    3. Buerger T,
    4. et al

    . Risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and vessel occlusion before endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. Stroke 2002;33:1057–62

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
54. 54.↵
    Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. J Am Med Assoc 1995;273: 1421–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
55. 55.↵
    1. Halliday A,
    2. Mansfield A,
    3. Marro J,
    4. et al.

    , for the MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363:1491–502. Erratum in Lancet 2004;364:416

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
56. 56.↵
    1. Chimowitz MI,
    2. Lynn MJ,
    3. Derdeyn CP,
    4. et al.

    , for the SAMMPRIS Trial Investigators. Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:993–1003

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
57. 57.↵
    1. Yonas H,
    2. Carlson A,
    3. Nemoto EM

    . Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS): Failure of concept or methodology? In: Proceedings of the XXVth Symposium of International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism and the Xth International Conference on the Quantification of Brain Function with PET, Barcelona, Spain. May 25–28, 2011
58. 58.↵
    1. Abbott AL

    . Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: results of a systematic review and analysis. Stroke 2009;40:e573–83

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
59. 59.↵
    National Hospital Discharge Survey 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhds.htm. Accessed December 2010
60. 60.↵
    1. Kilaru S,
    2. Korn P,
    3. Kasirajan K,
    4. et al

    . Is carotid angioplasty and stenting more cost effective than carotid endarterectomy? J Vasc Surg 2003;37:331–39

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science