About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Obesity
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 298675, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/298675
Research Article

Comparison among T1-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Modified Dixon Method, and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Measuring Bone Marrow Fat

New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital and Institute of Human Nutrition, Columbia University, 1090 Amsterdam Avenue, 14K, New York, NY 10025, USA

Received 1 February 2013; Accepted 5 March 2013

Academic Editor: Analiza M. Silva

Copyright © 2013 Wei Shen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Introduction. An increasing number of studies are utilizing different magnetic resonance (MR) methods to quantify bone marrow fat due to its potential role in osteoporosis. Our aim is to compare the measurements of bone marrow fat among T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), modified Dixon method (also called fat fraction MRI (FFMRI)), and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Methods. Contiguous MRI scans were acquired in 27 Caucasian postmenopausal women with a modified Dixon method (i.e., FFMRI). Bone marrow adipose tissue (BMAT) of T1-weighted MRI and bone marrow fat fraction of the L3 vertebra and femoral necks were quantified using SliceOmatic and Matlab. MRS was also acquired at the L3 vertebra. Results. Correlation among the three MR methods measured bone marrow fat fraction and BMAT ranges from 0.78 to 0.88 in the L3 vertebra. Correlation between BMAT measured by T1-weighted MRI and bone marrow fat fraction measured by modified FFMRI is 0.86 in femoral necks. Conclusion. There are good correlations among T1-weighted MRI, FFMRI, and MRS for bone marrow fat quantification. The inhomogeneous distribution of bone marrow fat, the threshold segmentation of the T1-weighted MRI, and the ambiguity of the FFMRI may partially explain the difference among the three methods.