# Scan/rescan reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

## TL;DR

This study evaluates how reliable MRI measurements of lower lumbar vertebrae are when different operators and analysts are involved.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comprehensive evaluation of MRI reliability that includes imaging, image selection, and analysis.

## Key findings

- Mean absolute differences in measurements were 4.05% in worst-case scenarios involving different MRI operators and analysts.
- Variability in measurements was minimal and mainly due to breathing artifacts.
- MRI demonstrates robust reliability for biomechanical assessments of bony structures.

## Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to estimate the geometric dimensions of lower lumbar vertebrae. While MRI-based measurements have demonstrated good reliability with interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.80 or higher, many evaluations focus solely on the comparison of identical MRI images. This
approach primarily reflects analyst dexterity and does not assess the reliability of the entire process, including imaging and image selection.

To evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the entire process of using MRI to measure biomechanically relevant lumbar spinal characteristics, incorporating imaging, image selection, and analysis. Methods: A dataset of 144 low-back MRI scans was analyzed. Reliability assessments were performed under different conditions: (1) identical scans rated by the same analyst at different times (intra-rater reliability) and (2) distinct scans of the same subject obtained by different MRI operators and analyzed by different analysts (inter-rater
reliability). Mean absolute differences in measurements were calculated, and sources of variability, such as breathing artifacts, were noted.

Larger discrepancies were observed when comparing distinct scans analyzed by different MRI operators and analysts. In the “worst-case” scenario, where both the MRI operator and analyst differed, a 4.05% mean absolute difference was noted for anterior endplate measurements. This was higher than the 2.76% difference observed when analysts re-rated their own scans after one month. Despite these discrepancies, the variability in measurements was relatively low and primarily attributed to factors like breathing artifacts.

The process of using MRI to derive biomechanical measures, particularly for bony structures, demonstrates robust reliability. Variability in measurements is minimal even under challenging conditions, supporting the use of MRI for biomechanical assessments.