This work aims at exploiting the unique myelin specificity of the inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) technique to characterize the recovery dynamics of active multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions. IhMT and three other myelin-sensitive techniques, conventional MT, T1-weighted, and diffusion tensor imaging, were applied in a 12-month longitudinal study performed on relapsing-remitting MS patients. An exponential recovery model was used to fit the variations over time of the metrics derived from each MR technique within new active lesions. A principal component analysis was performed on the model parameters obtained for all MR myelin-sensitive techniques across all active lesions of all patients to identify specific recovery profiles. The results show that the recovery profiles of myelin-sensitive MR metrics in active MS lesions vary according to the localization and size of lesions. The distance of lesions from the ventricles is positively associated with the recovery rates of ihMTR and T1w-MPRAGE: the further the lesion is from the ventricles, the higher the recovery rate of these metrics. Lesion size is positively associated with initial loss and negatively associated with final recovery of ihMTR and other MR metrics: small lesions have lower initial loss and greater final recovery of MR metrics than large lesions. Thanks to the specificity of the ihMT technique for myelin, these features can be interpreted in terms of remyelination. This study thus provides longitudinal in vivo support for the pathological observations of higher remyelination in small lesions compared with large ones and faster remyelination in lesions away from the ventricles. These results support the use of ihMT and other measures for quantifying remyelination rates in clinical studies of remyelination therapies.

Axonal pathology in multiple sclerosis (MS) occurs in focal inflammatory and demyelinating white matter (WM) lesions and within the so-called normal-appearing white matter (NAWM). Some axonal damage is mild and reversible and the mechanisms allowing for the recovery of tissue integrity include remyelination and axonal repair (Franklin et al., 2012; Oh et al., 2019). Remyelination is a spontaneous regenerative process that can occur with high efficiency early in the disease in new MS lesions located in previously unaffected white matter. Once the processes of oligodendrocytes and myelin destruction have ceased completely, usually within few weeks in many new lesions, the reappearance of oligodendrocytes frequently triggers remyelination, giving rise to remyelinated plaques, the so-called shadow plaques (Lassmann et al., 1997; Patrikios et al., 2006; Prineas et al., 1993). Remyelination represents a powerful means of preventing axonal damage attributable to loss of myelin trophic support and hence enables tissue protection.

Surrogate markers for remyelination are required to demonstrate that experimental therapeutic agents promoting remyelination (Franklin et al., 2012) achieve their full effect. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard imaging biomarker for remyelinated lesions nor clinical tools to assess the remyelination status of individual patients (Wang et al., 2019). Different myelin-sensitive MRI methods have been proposed to correlate the changes of their measures (including myelin water fraction (MWF), T1, magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), and radial diffusivity (RD)) with the variations of myelin content (Chen et al., 2008; Galbusera et al., 2022; Kitzler et al., 2022; Kolb et al., 2021), but their application in clinical trials led to variable results (Wang et al., 2019) and many remyelination processes of active MS lesions have yet to be characterized in vivo.

Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) (Varma et al., 2015) is a refinement of the MT technique that provides unique contrast between tissues relative to MT by isolating dipolar order effects within motion-restricted molecules (Varma et al., 2015) that are weighted by the corresponding dipolar order relaxation time, T1D. Because T1D is longer in myelinated tissues than any other surrounding tissue in the brain, ihMT images are highly sensitive and specific to myelin. In particular, the specificity of the ihMT signal is much higher than for metrics derived from other myelin-sensitive techniques including MTR and T1 (Duhamel et al., 2019; Hertanu et al., 2022). IhMT also demonstrated better sensitivity to the MS pathology and a higher correlation with EDSS compared with conventional MT (Rasoanandrianina et al., 2020; Van Obberghen et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020).

In this work, the unique specificity of ihMT for myelin was exploited in a longitudinal study performed on relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients to characterize the individual evolution dynamics of new active lesions over a 12-month period. For comparison, three other myelin-sensitive techniques, conventional MT, diffusion tensor (DTI), and T1-weighted (T1w) imaging were included in the protocol. A time-recovery exponential model was used to fit the variations of ihMT-, MT-, DTI-, and T1w-derived metrics measured in new active lesions over time. The parameters of the model included the lesions’ initial values, final values after recovery, and recovery rates. A principal component analysis (PCA) with the ID of the patient from which the lesion(s) came, the size of the lesions, and their localization relative to the ventricles defined as categorical variables, was performed on the model parameters obtained for all MR techniques across all active lesions of all patients with the aim of discovering patterns in recovery. These variables were chosen based on studies that have highlighted the importance of size (Franklin & ffrench-Constant, 2008) and localization in relation to the ventricles (Goldschmidt et al., 2009; Patrikios et al., 2006) in the ability of a lesion to remyelinate.

2.1 Population and clinical assessment

Nine patients with RRMS (8:1 female:male; mean age = 32.8 years, range = 21-51 years, mean disease duration = 66.6 ± 73.6 months and median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score = 1.0, range = 0-3.5) were enrolled in a 12-month longitudinal MR study. Inclusion was based on the occurrence of at least one active lesion on a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted brain scan performed less than 15 days earlier. Patients were scanned every other month during 6 months and a final scan was conducted in the 12th month. Scanning time points are hereafter referred to as M0, M2, M4, M6, and M12. Patients’ characteristics and clinical data at M0 are presented in Table 1. Eight control subjects (4:4 women:men; mean age = 29.4 years, range = 21-39 years) were scanned twice (at M0 and M12) to provide a control database for comparison. Patients and control subjects provided informed consent to participate in this research study, which received the approval of the local research ethics committee (CPP Sud Méditerranée 1).

Table 1.

Subject demographics.

Lesions
Patient #Gender - age (M0)Disease duration (M0)EDSS
M0/M12
Treatment during follow-upMonth of detectionCore size (mm3)Localization w/r ventricles*
F – 27 y 61 m 1.5/1 None (M0), natalizumab (M2-M12L1 M0 118 Pro. 
L2 M0 589 Dis. 
L3 M0 1095 Pro. 
L4 M0 131 Dis. 
L5 M0 152 Dis. 
L6 M0 899 Pro. 
L7 M0 276 Dis. 
L8 M2 239 Dis. 
L9 M2 226 Pro. 
L10 M2 617 Pro. 
L11 M2 238 Pro. 
M – 42 y 214 m 1/1 None L12 M0 1340 Pro. 
L13 M0 648 Dis. 
F – 21 y 59 m 3.5/2.5 None (M0), natalizumab (M2-M4), rituximab (M6-M12), L14 M0 100 Pro. 
L15 M0 62 Pro. 
L16 M0 371 Dis. 
L17 M0 218 Dis. 
L18 M0 74 Dis. 
L19 M0 143 Pro. 
L20 M0 83 Dis. 
L21 M0 32 Pro. 
L22 M0 112 Pro. 
L23 M0 83 Dis. 
L24 M0 78 Dis. 
L25 M2 30 Pro. 
F – 42 y 58 m 1.5/1 None (M0)Fingolimod (M6-M12L26 M0 110 Pro. 
L27 M0 40 Dis. 
L28 M0 108 Dis. 
L29 M0 47 Pro. 
L30 M0 72 Pro. 
F – 23 y 4 m 0/0 None L31 M2 57 Dis. 
F – 51 y 160 m 0/0 None L32 M0 375 Dis. 
L33 M0 635 Dis. 
L34 M0 288 Dis. 
L35 M0 547 Dis. 
L36 M0 312 Dis. 
L37 M0 27 Dis. 
L38 M0 12 Dis. 
L39 M0 157 Dis. 
L40
 
M0 72 Dis. 
L41 M2 63 Dis. 
L42 M2 43 Dis. 
F – 28 y 6 m 0/1 None L43 M0 45 Dis. 
L44 M0 50 Pro. 
L45 M0 41 Dis. 
L46 M0 22 Dis. 
L47 M2 110 Pro. 
F – 39 y 34 m 1.5/1 Fingolimod
Rituximab (M2-M12
L48 M0 682 Pro. 
F – 22 y 3 m 0/0 None (M0)Dimethyl fumarate (M6-M12L49 M0 124 Pro. 
L50 M0 357 Pro. 
L51 M0 14 Dis. 
L52 M0 66 Dis. 
Lesions
Patient #Gender - age (M0)Disease duration (M0)EDSS
M0/M12
Treatment during follow-upMonth of detectionCore size (mm3)Localization w/r ventricles*
F – 27 y 61 m 1.5/1 None (M0), natalizumab (M2-M12L1 M0 118 Pro. 
L2 M0 589 Dis. 
L3 M0 1095 Pro. 
L4 M0 131 Dis. 
L5 M0 152 Dis. 
L6 M0 899 Pro. 
L7 M0 276 Dis. 
L8 M2 239 Dis. 
L9 M2 226 Pro. 
L10 M2 617 Pro. 
L11 M2 238 Pro. 
M – 42 y 214 m 1/1 None L12 M0 1340 Pro. 
L13 M0 648 Dis. 
F – 21 y 59 m 3.5/2.5 None (M0), natalizumab (M2-M4), rituximab (M6-M12), L14 M0 100 Pro. 
L15 M0 62 Pro. 
L16 M0 371 Dis. 
L17 M0 218 Dis. 
L18 M0 74 Dis. 
L19 M0 143 Pro. 
L20 M0 83 Dis. 
L21 M0 32 Pro. 
L22 M0 112 Pro. 
L23 M0 83 Dis. 
L24 M0 78 Dis. 
L25 M2 30 Pro. 
F – 42 y 58 m 1.5/1 None (M0)Fingolimod (M6-M12L26 M0 110 Pro. 
L27 M0 40 Dis. 
L28 M0 108 Dis. 
L29 M0 47 Pro. 
L30 M0 72 Pro. 
F – 23 y 4 m 0/0 None L31 M2 57 Dis. 
F – 51 y 160 m 0/0 None L32 M0 375 Dis. 
L33 M0 635 Dis. 
L34 M0 288 Dis. 
L35 M0 547 Dis. 
L36 M0 312 Dis. 
L37 M0 27 Dis. 
L38 M0 12 Dis. 
L39 M0 157 Dis. 
L40
 
M0 72 Dis. 
L41 M2 63 Dis. 
L42 M2 43 Dis. 
F – 28 y 6 m 0/1 None L43 M0 45 Dis. 
L44 M0 50 Pro. 
L45 M0 41 Dis. 
L46 M0 22 Dis. 
L47 M2 110 Pro. 
F – 39 y 34 m 1.5/1 Fingolimod
Rituximab (M2-M12
L48 M0 682 Pro. 
F – 22 y 3 m 0/0 None (M0)Dimethyl fumarate (M6-M12L49 M0 124 Pro. 
L50 M0 357 Pro. 
L51 M0 14 Dis. 
L52 M0 66 Dis. 
*

Pro.: lesions proximal to ventricles (<10 mm). Dis.: lesions distal from ventricles (>10 mm). Lesions indicated in bold correspond to those for which the recovery model failed to fit the signal dynamics with R2adj < 0.6 for ihMTR (L8, L9, L15, L17, L18, L20, L25, L31, L42, and L46), MTR (L8, L25, L31, L35, L42, and L46), RD (L8, L12, L13, L25, L30, L31, L35, L38, L39, L42, L45, and L46), and MPRAGE (L42).

2.2 MRI protocol

The longitudinal MR study was performed on a 1.5T MRI system (MAGNETOM Avanto, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) with a body coil for transmission and a 32-channel receive-only head coil. The MR protocol included 1-mm isotropic magnetization prepared rapid acquisition of gradient echo (MPRAGE; T1-weighted), and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR; T2-weighted) that were used for image registration and lesion segmentation. The T1-weighted MPRAGE was also considered for myelin imaging along with a sensitivity-enhanced 3D ihMT gradient echo (GRE) sequence (Mchinda et al., 2018), a conventional 3D MT-GRE sequence and a multislice 2D Diffusion-Weighted Spin-Echo Echo-Planar Imaging sequence, which were acquired with sequence parameters provided in Table 2. Additionally, at M0, at the end of the protocol, spin-echo T1w images were acquired pre- and postintravenous injection of gadoterate meglumine (2 mL/kg, concentration 0.5 mmol/mL, Dotarem, Guerbet, Roissy CdG, Cedex, France) for active lesion detection by contrast-enhancement.

Table 2.

Sequence parameters used for ihMT, MT, and DTI imaging.

3D ihMT-GRE3D MT-GRE2D DTI-EPI
Contrast parameters  Sensitivity-enhanced ihMT preparation*:
0.5 ms Hann-shaped pulse
Pulse repetition time Δt= 1.0 ms
Number of pulses per burst of saturation Npulses = 12
Saturation power B1,RMS = 5.5 µT
Frequency offset, ∆f = 8 kHz 
7.68-ms gaussian pulse
1.5 kHz frequency offset
Applied flip angle of 500° 
1 reference
(b = 0 s/mm²)
64 directions (b = 800 s/mm²)AP/PA phase encoding 
Readout parameters Matrix 128 x 100 x 80 128 x 100 x 80 104 x 104 x 72 
Voxel size 2.0 mm iso. 2.0 mm iso. 2.5 x 2.3 x 2.3 mm3 
timing TR/TRO/TE = 67.9/6.2/3.0 ms9 readout segment per preparation TR/TE = 16.0/3.0 ms
1 readout segment per TR 
TR/TE = 3855/68.2 ms 
Readout flip angle 7° 10° 180/90° 
Receiver bandwidth 370 Hz/voxel 370 Hz/voxel 1658 Hz/voxel 
Acquisition time  9’06” 2’40” 9’39” 
3D ihMT-GRE3D MT-GRE2D DTI-EPI
Contrast parameters  Sensitivity-enhanced ihMT preparation*:
0.5 ms Hann-shaped pulse
Pulse repetition time Δt= 1.0 ms
Number of pulses per burst of saturation Npulses = 12
Saturation power B1,RMS = 5.5 µT
Frequency offset, ∆f = 8 kHz 
7.68-ms gaussian pulse
1.5 kHz frequency offset
Applied flip angle of 500° 
1 reference
(b = 0 s/mm²)
64 directions (b = 800 s/mm²)AP/PA phase encoding 
Readout parameters Matrix 128 x 100 x 80 128 x 100 x 80 104 x 104 x 72 
Voxel size 2.0 mm iso. 2.0 mm iso. 2.5 x 2.3 x 2.3 mm3 
timing TR/TRO/TE = 67.9/6.2/3.0 ms9 readout segment per preparation TR/TE = 16.0/3.0 ms
1 readout segment per TR 
TR/TE = 3855/68.2 ms 
Readout flip angle 7° 10° 180/90° 
Receiver bandwidth 370 Hz/voxel 370 Hz/voxel 1658 Hz/voxel 
Acquisition time  9’06” 2’40” 9’39” 
*

As reported in Mchinda et al. (2018).

2.3 Parametric images

The conventional MT ratio (MTR) was calculated as:

(1)

where MT and MT0 correspond to the saturated and nonsaturated rigidly coregistered 3D MT-GRE images (corrected for Gibbs-ringing artifacts with an isotropic 3D-cosine kernel), respectively.

The ihMT ratio (ihMTR) was computed from the four MT-weighted and reference images derived from the 3D ihMT-GRE sequence as follows (Mchinda et al., 2018; Varma et al., 2015):

(2)

where MT+ and MT correspond to MT-weighted images obtained with saturation at single frequency offsets +∆f and -∆f, respectively; MT± and MT correspond to MT-weighted images obtained with dual-frequency offset saturation by alternating the frequency of the RF saturation pulses from +∆f to -∆f every successive pulse; MT0 corresponds to the nonsaturated reference image. The MT-weighted magnitude images were denoised using the MP-PCA (Grussu et al., 2020; Veraart et al., 2016) routine from the MRtrix3 package (v. RC301) (Tournier et al., 2019), corrected for Gibbs-ringing artifacts with an isotropic 3D-cosine kernel, and combined to generate ihMTR maps based on equation 2 following application of a dedicated motion correction algorithm (Soustelle et al., 2020). A bash-based wrapper comprising the aforementioned steps is available at: https://github.com/lsoustelle/ihmt_proc (hash #c9bb409).

Radial diffusivity (RD) was computed from diffusion-weighted images using the DESIGNER pipeline (Ades-Aron et al., 2018) based on the MRtrix3 library. The preprocessing steps included MP-PCA denoising (Veraart et al., 2016), Gibbs artifacts removal (Kellner et al., 2016) followed by motion correction and distortion correction steps (Andersson et al., 2003, 2016), prior to tensor estimation.

T1w-MPRAGE images were preprocessed by a bias-field correction using Nick’s N3 algorithm (Tustison et al., 2010) implemented in the Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTS; v. 2.3.3) (Avants et al., 2009), and after atlas-based brain extraction using the antsBrainExtraction.sh routine (Avants et al., 2010) from the MNI152 atlas (symmetric ICBM 2009a).

2.4 Image postprocessing

The postprocessing procedures described hereafter were designed to allow quantitative measurements and comparison of MR metrics in masks of active lesions, masks of NAWM, and masks of normal white matter (NWM) at different time points of the longitudinal study.

First, for each subject, T1w-MPRAGE images, FLAIR images, ihMTR maps, MTR maps, and RD maps acquired at all time points were rigidly registered onto the anatomic T1w-MPRAGE volume acquired at M0 using ANTS. Masks of active lesions, nonactive lesions, and contralateral NAWM were then derived as described in Sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.3. Masks of NWM in brain areas corresponding to the areas of MS lesions were derived from the control groups as described in Section 2.4.4.

2.4.1 Masks of active lesions

Lesions following the MS diagnosis criteria (Filippi et al., 2016) and showing T1 contrast-enhancement postgadolinium injection at M0, as well as new lesions detected at M2 were categorized as active MS lesions. They were manually segmented and labeled by an expert (S.G.) on the FLAIR images. Lesions whose long-axis size was inferior to 3 mm were discarded to limit potential registration-based misalignment along time. A total of 52 lesions met the criteria and were analyzed. Each of the 52 lesion masks was subsequently subdivided into two classes using Atropos’ k-means clustering algorithm (Avants et al., 2011) and based on the initial T1w-MPRAGE signal intensity (Thaler et al., 2015). The class with the lowest relative T1w intensity was defined as the core of the lesion (Fig. 1a), while the second class defined the edge of the lesion. The resulting subsegmented masks were then propagated at all time points. All analyses reported in this study were performed in the core of the lesions only (the distribution of ratios between the core volume and the entire volume of active lesions is provided in Supplementary Material, Fig. S1).

Fig. 1.

Sketch of the lesion core submask creation (a). The mask of the lesion, manually drawn on the FLAIR image, is propagated on the T1W-MPRAGE image. A two-class segmentation performed with the Atropos’ k-means clustering algorithm applied on the T1W-MPRAGE image creates the lesion core submask. Representative sagittal views of FLAIR, T1w-MPRAGE, ihMTR, MTR, and RD images for two different patients (b) with examples of lesions proximal (Pro., red arrows) and distal (Dist., black arrows) from the ventricles (patient P7), as well as large (> 200 mm3, blue arrows) and small (< 200 mm3, green arrows) lesions (patient P2).

Fig. 1.

Sketch of the lesion core submask creation (a). The mask of the lesion, manually drawn on the FLAIR image, is propagated on the T1W-MPRAGE image. A two-class segmentation performed with the Atropos’ k-means clustering algorithm applied on the T1W-MPRAGE image creates the lesion core submask. Representative sagittal views of FLAIR, T1w-MPRAGE, ihMTR, MTR, and RD images for two different patients (b) with examples of lesions proximal (Pro., red arrows) and distal (Dist., black arrows) from the ventricles (patient P7), as well as large (> 200 mm3, blue arrows) and small (< 200 mm3, green arrows) lesions (patient P2).

Close modal
2.4.1.1 Active lesions labeling

The 52 active lesions were labeled according to three categorical criteria including their patient ID, their size, and their localization relative to the ventricles (Table 1).

  • (i)

    Patient ID: little evidence supports that the extent of myelin regeneration in response to a demyelinating insult is patient dependent, with regeneration levels demonstrating high intrapatient variability (Bodini et al., 2016). In an attempt to identify potential patient-specific profiles of remyelination in the dynamics of MR metrics during lesions recovery, all the lesions of a given patient were labeled with the same patient ID.

  • (ii)

    Size: In the remyelination process, oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPC) need to be recruited to lesions from surrounding intact tissue. Lesion size affects remyelination efficiency since larger lesions require a greater impetus for OPC recruitment than smaller ones (Franklin & ffrench-Constant, 2008). In an attempt to identify a lesion size effect in the pattern of remyelination, the 52 active lesions of the dataset were classified into 2 categories: Lesions with a core size less than 200 mm3 were labeled small, and lesions with a core size larger than 200 mm3 were labeled large (Fig. 1b). The threshold value of 200 mm3 was determined based on the observation of the lesion size histogram for which we identified 2 groups: 33 lesions (of the 52) lay in the restricted interval [12 mm3-157 mm3] and 19 lesions (of the 52) in the wide interval [218 mm3-1340 mm3].

  • (iii)

    Localization: Recent studies highlighted the importance of the lesion localization. In particular, a distance close to the lateral ventricles was associated with a lower extent of remyelination (Goldschmidt et al., 2009). A periventricular gradient of structural alterations and inflammation, characterized by lower MTR values and greater activation of innate immune cells in MS lesions located within 7-10 mm of the ventricular CSF compared with lesions further away, was also reported (Liu et al., 2015; Poirion et al., 2021). In an attempt to identify a localization effect in the pattern of remyelination, the 52 active lesions were classified into 2 categories based on their distance to the ventricles. The closest 3D Euclidian distance between the lesion’s centroid and the lateral ventricles surface was measured manually (using the ruler tool in ITK-SNAP (Yushkevich et al., 2006)). Lesions less than 10 mm from the ventricles were labeled as proximal (22/52 lesions), while lesions more than 10 mm were labeled as distal (30/52 lesions) (Fig. 1b).

2.4.2 Masks of nonactive lesions

Masks of nonactive WM lesions were created at each time point by manual segmentation on the FLAIR images of lesions not showing Gd contrast enhancement at M0. For each subject, the union of the masks from all time points defined the final masks of nonactive lesions. This procedure reduced potential mismatches induced by multiple acquisition aspect (partial volume effects due to field-of-views positioning at each time point) and multiple registrations (interpolation-related smoothing).

2.4.3 Masks of contralateral normal-appearing white matter

To investigate the follow-up behavior of active lesions, contralateral masks located in the NAWM and common at all time points were created and used for comparison. Hence, following the detection of active lesions at M0 or M2, we performed (i) lesion filling of all lesions (Battaglini et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2019) on the T1w-MPRAGE image; (ii) multistage rigid, affine, and symmetric diffeomorphic registration (SyN) of the MS patient’s T1w-MPRAGE image to the standard MNI152 space (symmetric ICBM 2009a) (Avants et al., 2011); (iii) forward transformation of the active lesion mask into the standard space; (iv) left-right mask flipping; and (v) backward transformation of the flipped mask image into the native subject space. Then, to avoid potential overlap of the contralateral masks with altered WM (e.g., lesion) or non-WM areas (e.g., gray matter or ventricles due to imperfect nonlinear registration), we refined the contralateral masks. For that, a mask of the whole NAWM was created at M0 by (i) use of FreeSurfer (Dale et al., 1999) to segment WM in the subject space at M0 and (ii) removal of all active and nonactive lesion masks (segmented at all time points) from the WM segmentation. Then, we calculated the intersection of the contralateral masks with the whole NAWM mask to create refined contralateral masks, which were propagated at all time points and used for analyses.

2.4.4 Masks of normal white matter in areas corresponding to lesions areas

For the purpose of comparison of MR metrics in lesions with normal values, a template-based mask of NWM corresponding rigorously to the areas of lesions was created from images of all control subjects as follows: (i) multistage rigid, affine, and symmetric diffeomorphic registration (SyN) of the subject’s T1w-MPRAGE image to the MNI152 space; (ii) application of the estimated transformations on quantitative ihMTR, MTR, and RD maps; (iii) cross-subjects averaging of maps at M0 and M12; and finally (iv) projection of the active lesion masks of MS patients into the created template space, which were refined using the MNI template’s paired WM probability image thresholded at 90%.

2.5 Dynamic model of MR signal recovery in remyelinating lesions

For each time point (ti), the relative variations (RVp) of ihMTR, MTR, RD, and T1w-MPRAGE signal values were calculated in the core of the 52 active lesions by considering the corresponding reference values measured in contralateral NAWM as follows:

(3)

where PL(ti) and PNAWM(ti) correspond to the mean values of the MR parameter P at the given time point ti in the core of a lesion and in the corresponding contralateral NAWM region, respectively. Note that the choice of analyzing the relative variations of the parameters rather than their absolute values was made to include T1w-MPRAGE-derived metrics, which could not be compared from patient to patient due to the lack of a reference signal value and the qualitative nature of these kinds of MR images.

An exponential recovery model was then used to fit the temporal dynamics of RVPs for each MR technique in their recovery phase:

(4)

where RVp() is a free parameter determining the asymptotic recovery value of the MR parameter P and R a free parameter denoting the recovery rate of the MR parameter P from its onset loss (RVp(t0)) to RVp(). RVp(t0) was a fixed parameter of the model with the time t0, empirically determined considering the typical period during which an MS lesion is inflammatory demyelinating and shows Gd enhancement (≤4 weeks (Filippi et al., 2019)) according to the following methodology: for each active lesion detected at M0, equation 4 was fitted to the temporal dynamics of RVps using M0 for t0 and the adjusted coefficients of determination (adj) were calculated. A value of 0.6 for adj was chosen as a validity criterion of the model: in the case where adj was higher than 0.6 for a particular MRI contrast, the model parameters for that contrast in that lesion were kept for the subsequent analyses. In the case where adj was lower than 0.6, the fit procedure was performed again using M2 for t0 (omitting the data from M0). If adj resulting from the new fit was higher than 0.6, the model parameters for that contrast in that lesion were kept for the subsequent analyses, otherwise, the model parameters for that contrast in that lesion were discarded. For new lesions detected at M2, the fits were performed using M2 for t0 and the lesion was kept for the subsequent analyses only if adj > 0.6. Note that for RD, even though it is expected to increase with demyelination at t0 and recover according to an exponential decay model, the terminology onset loss and exponential recovery were kept for easier comparison with the other metrics.

2.6 Statistics and principal component analysis (PCA)

Mean values of ihMTR, MTR, and RD were calculated in masks of active lesions’ cores, NAWM and NWM at t0 and M12. Differences between groups were tested by first examining the homogeneity of variance using the Bartlett test, and then by performing a one-way ANOVA Welch analysis followed by post hoc Games–Howell tests corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm–Bonferroni procedure (MATLAB, The MathWorks, Natick, Massachusetts, USA). Corrected p-values below 0.05 were considered significant.

The mean coefficient of variation (CoV) of MR parameters in NWM (from the controls group) between t0 and M12 allowed estimation of the variability in MR parameters induced by normal physiological processes within the longitudinal study period. The mean CoV was calculated with the individual CoVs, i.e., the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean of the parameter values at t0 and M12, averaged over the regions corresponding to the active lesions. In a similar way, the mean CoV of MR parameters in the contralateral NAWM of patients between t0 and M12 allowed estimation of the variability in MR parameters within the study period to act as reference for normalization of any changes attributed to remyelination.

Correlation analyses (Pearson test, correlation coefficient ρ²) were performed to evaluate the association between the RVp values of different MR parameters at t0 and at M12. This analysis aims at evaluating the degree of complementarity of these techniques of variable specificity. Intraparameter correlation analyses between RVp values at t0 and at M12 were also performed to evaluate the predictive capability of the MR metrics. A Holm–Bonferroni corrected p-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all correlation analyses. Comparison of correlation coefficients between ihMTR and RD and T1W-MPRAGE, and between MTR and RD and T1W-MPRAGE were tested using Steiger’s modification of Dunn and Clark’s z approach for overlapping correlations based on dependent groups (Steiger, 1980) implemented in the cocor package (Diedenhofen & Musch, 2015) in R (v. 4.3.0).

In order to identify lesions with similar recovery profiles (i.e., lesions that have similar parameter values output from the recovery model applied on the MRI techniques), a PCA was conducted on the 12 active variables (onset loss, asymptotic recovery, and recovery rate of the 4 MR techniques). The recovery rate R was expressed in month-1 while the onset loss (reported as |RVp(t0)|) and the asymptotic recovery (reported as 1+RVP() for MTR, ihMTR, T1w-MPRAGE, and 1-RVP() for RD) values were expressed as percentages of the parameter P in NAWM taken for reference. For example, an ihMTR onset loss of 80% means that the value of ihMTR in the lesion at t0 is equal to 20% of its value in NAWM. Conversely, an asymptotic recovery of 85% means the value of ihMTR in the lesion at t() is equal to 85% of its value in NAWM. The lesions’ patient ID, size, and localization relative to the ventricles were defined as additional categorical variables. A 2-dimension regularized iterative PCA for imputation of missing data was performed using the missMDA and FactorMineR packages (Josse & Husson, 2016) implemented in R (R Core Team, 2022) to account for discarded lesions.

3.1 Variations of metrics in different tissues

Representative evolution of the different MR contrasts over time in normal appearing tissue and in an active lesion can be appreciated in Figure 2. Quantitative analyses showed that MR parameter values in NWM were not significantly different between t0 and M12 (Fig. 3). The CoVs of MR parameters measured in NWM were 0.9% for ihMTR, 0.2% for MTR, and 0.8% for RD. MR parameter values in contralateral NAWM were also not different between t0 and M12, but values in contralateral NAWM were significantly different than those in NWM at each time point (Fig. 3). The CoVs of MR parameters measured in contralateral NAWM were 2.5% for ihMTR, 0.7% for MTR, and 1.4% for RD. Finally, MR parameters values in lesions were significantly different between t0 and M12 and significantly different than the values in NWM and contralateral NAWM (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2.

Representative axial images from a patient showing the evolution of the different MR contrasts over time in normal appearing tissue and in an active lesion (zoom inserts). The blue and orange lines delineate the whole lesion and the lesion core, respectively.

Fig. 2.

Representative axial images from a patient showing the evolution of the different MR contrasts over time in normal appearing tissue and in an active lesion (zoom inserts). The blue and orange lines delineate the whole lesion and the lesion core, respectively.

Close modal
Fig. 3.

Boxplots of ihMTR (a), MTR (b), and RD (c) average values in NWM, NAWM, and lesions. Solid and dashed red lines indicate mean and median values of the distributions, respectively. Red boxes span from mean to ± standard deviation (SD), and blue boxes span from mean to ± 1.96xSD. Values in NWM at M0 and M12 were not different, nor were the values in NAWM at M0 and M12. Conversely, values in lesions were significantly different (p<0.05, corrected for N = 6 comparisons) at M0 and M12 (*). Values in NWM (at both M0 and M12) were significantly different than values in NAWM and values in lesions at t0 and at M12 (***). Values in NAWM (at both M0 and M12) were significantly different than values in lesions at t0 and at M12 (**). Average relative variation of MR parameters evaluated in lesions with respect to NWM and NAWM is reported, as well as that evaluated in NAWM with respect to NWM. Boxplots were rendered using the notBoxPlot package (https://github.com/raacampbell/notBoxPlot) implemented for Matlab (R2017b, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA)

Fig. 3.

Boxplots of ihMTR (a), MTR (b), and RD (c) average values in NWM, NAWM, and lesions. Solid and dashed red lines indicate mean and median values of the distributions, respectively. Red boxes span from mean to ± standard deviation (SD), and blue boxes span from mean to ± 1.96xSD. Values in NWM at M0 and M12 were not different, nor were the values in NAWM at M0 and M12. Conversely, values in lesions were significantly different (p<0.05, corrected for N = 6 comparisons) at M0 and M12 (*). Values in NWM (at both M0 and M12) were significantly different than values in NAWM and values in lesions at t0 and at M12 (***). Values in NAWM (at both M0 and M12) were significantly different than values in lesions at t0 and at M12 (**). Average relative variation of MR parameters evaluated in lesions with respect to NWM and NAWM is reported, as well as that evaluated in NAWM with respect to NWM. Boxplots were rendered using the notBoxPlot package (https://github.com/raacampbell/notBoxPlot) implemented for Matlab (R2017b, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA)

Close modal

3.2 Correlation analyses

Interparameter correlation analyses (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Material, Fig. S2) between relative variations indicate strong associations between ihMTR and MTR at both t0 and M12 (ρ² > 0.83, p < 0.05). On the other hand, at t0, ihMTR was significantly less correlated with RD and T1w-MPRAGE (ρ² < 0.61, p < 0.05) than was MTR (ρ² > 0.74, p < 0.05).

Fig. 4.

Correlation matrices (Pearson coefficient, ρ2) between the RVp values (N = 52 active lesions) of MR parameters at t0 (left) and at M12 (right).

Fig. 4.

Correlation matrices (Pearson coefficient, ρ2) between the RVp values (N = 52 active lesions) of MR parameters at t0 (left) and at M12 (right).

Close modal

Intraparameter correlations between t0 and M12 (Supplementary Material, Fig. S3) indicate stronger association for ihMTR (ρ² = 0.59, p < 0.001) compared with MTR (ρ² = 0.42, p < 0.001). Correlations for other metrics were low (ρ² = 0.21, p = 0.01 for RD and ρ² = 0.15, p = 0.02 for T1w-MPRAGE).

3.3 Recovery of MR metrics in active lesions

Illustrative temporal dynamics of RVP values fitted by the exponential recovery model are illustrated in Figure 5 for cases where R²adj > 0.6 and t0 = M0 (Fig. 5, lesion #1), R²adj > 0.6 and t0 = M2 (Fig. 5, lesion #2), and R²adj < 0.6 (for all MR parameters but T1w-MPRAGE, Fig. 5 lesion #3). Over the 52 lesions, a total of data from 10 lesions for ihMTR, 6 for MTR, 12 for RD, and 1 for T1w-MPRAGE were discarded (Table 1) based on the threshold value of 0.6 for R²adj.

Fig. 5.

Temporal dynamics of the MR parameters RV values (relative variation between the parameter value in lesion and in NAWM) fitted by the 3-parameter exponential recovery model for 3 different cases: R2adj > 0.6 and t0 = M0 (lesion#1), t0 = M2 (lesion#2), and R2adj<0.6 (lesion#3).

Fig. 5.

Temporal dynamics of the MR parameters RV values (relative variation between the parameter value in lesion and in NAWM) fitted by the 3-parameter exponential recovery model for 3 different cases: R2adj > 0.6 and t0 = M0 (lesion#1), t0 = M2 (lesion#2), and R2adj<0.6 (lesion#3).

Close modal

3.4 Principal component analysis of the dynamic recovery dataset

The first 2 principal components (PC1 and PC2) of the PCA account for 60% of the total variance of the dataset, and the first 3 components account for more than 70%. The onset loss and the asymptotic recovery of all MR metrics are the active variables loading on PC1 (Fig. 6a, loadings plot), although the correlations of RD and T1w-MPRAGE asymptotic recovery variables are lower (ρ < 0.7, Table 3). Onset loss variables load oppositely to the asymptotic recovery variables on PC1, thus indicating negative correlation between these variables: the higher the initial loss of MR metrics values in active lesions, the lower their final recovery values, and vice versa. The recovery rates of ihMTR and T1w-MPRAGE are the only variables loading on PC2 (ρ > 0.7, Fig. 6a and Table 3). Also, the quasi-orthogonality between the vectors of the recovery rate variables and the vectors of the initial loss and asymptotic recovery variables indicates that the recovery rates of ihMTR and T1w-MPRAGE in active lesions are not correlated with either their initial loss or their final recovery value. The colored score plots (Fig. 6b-d) help identifying lesions with similar profiles of remyelination based on the additional categorical variables: the overlapping confidence ellipses in Figure 6b indicate that no individual patient profile can be determined based on the investigated active variables. In contrast, the confidence ellipses separated along PC2 (Fig. 6c) suggest a different ihMTR and T1w-MPRAGE recovery rate profile between proximal CSF and distal CSF lesion groups. The group of lesions distal from the ventricles appears to be associated with faster ihMTR and T1w-MPRAGE recovery rates than the group of proximal lesions. Quantitative values indicate recovery rates increased 4-fold for ihMTR (2.80 month-1 vs. 0.63 month-1, p < 0.05) and 2.5-fold for T1w-MPRAGE (1.35 month-1 vs. 0.54 month-1, p > 0.05) for lesions more distal to ventricles (Table 4). Similarly, the confidence ellipses separated along PC1 (Fig. 6d) suggest a different onset loss and asymptotic recovery profile between groups of lesions of different sizes. The group of lesions smaller than 200 mm3 appears to be associated with lower onset loss and higher asymptotic recovery values of the MR metrics than the group of lesions larger than 200 mm3, and vice versa. Specifically, quantitative values indicate an onset loss 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.1 times lower for T1W-MPRAGE, ihMTR, MTR, and RD, respectively, and an asymptotic recovery 1.05 and 1.15 times higher for MTR and ihMTR, respectively, for the group of lesions smaller than 200 mm3 compared with those larger than 200 mm3 (p < 0.05, except for T1w-MPRAGE, Table 4). Correlation plots between lesion localization and ihMTR/T1w-MPRAGE recovery rates, as well as correlation plots between lesion size and onset loss/asymptotic recovery of the relevant parameters extracted from the PCA are provided as Supplementary Material (Fig. S4).

Fig. 6.

PCA. Loading (correlation values, ρ (Table 3)) plot of the active variables (onset loss, asymptotic recovery, and recovery rate of MR parameters) colored as a function of their quality of representation (cos2) on the two first components (a). Score plots of the individuals (lesions) colored as a function of the values of the categorical variables (lesion patient’s ID (b), lesion’s localization (c), and lesion’s size (d)) and 95% confidence ellipses.

Fig. 6.

PCA. Loading (correlation values, ρ (Table 3)) plot of the active variables (onset loss, asymptotic recovery, and recovery rate of MR parameters) colored as a function of their quality of representation (cos2) on the two first components (a). Score plots of the individuals (lesions) colored as a function of the values of the categorical variables (lesion patient’s ID (b), lesion’s localization (c), and lesion’s size (d)) and 95% confidence ellipses.

Close modal
Table 3.

Summary of the PCA.

PC1 (44.53%)PC2 (15.53%)PC3 (10.53%)
Correlation (ρ)Contributioncos2Correlation (ρ)Contributioncos2Correlation (ρ)Contributioncos2
IhMTR Onset loss 0.94 16.56 0.89 -0.05 0.16 0.00 0.15 1.83 0.02 
Asymptotic recovery -0.80 11.82 0.63 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.22 3.755 0.05 
Recovery rate -0.25 1.21 0.07 0.89 42.73 0.80 0.09 0.58 0.01 
MTR Onset loss 0.90 15.28 0.82 -0.06 0.17 0.00 0.33 8.84 0.11 
Asymptotic recovery -0.82 12.56 0.67 0.15 1.15 0.02 0.35 9.61 0.12 
Recovery rate 0.25 1.14 0.06 0.41 8.90 0.17 -0.19 2.76 0.04 
RD Onset loss 0.79 11.77 0.63 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.49 18.64 0.24 
Asymptotic recovery -0.62 7.22 0.39 -0.15 1.24 0.02 0.21 3.52 0.04 
Recovery rate 0.34 2.12 0.11 0.25 3.30 0.06 -0.48 18.16 0.23 
T1W-MPRAGE Onset loss 0.82 12.71 0.68 0.24 3.19 0.06 0.38 11.55 0.15 
Asymptotic recovery -0.63 7.33 0.39 -0.14 1.07 0.02 0.51 20.24 0.26 
Recovery rate -0.12 0.28 0.02 0.84 37.73 0.70 0.08 0.52 0.01 
PC1 (44.53%)PC2 (15.53%)PC3 (10.53%)
Correlation (ρ)Contributioncos2Correlation (ρ)Contributioncos2Correlation (ρ)Contributioncos2
IhMTR Onset loss 0.94 16.56 0.89 -0.05 0.16 0.00 0.15 1.83 0.02 
Asymptotic recovery -0.80 11.82 0.63 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.22 3.755 0.05 
Recovery rate -0.25 1.21 0.07 0.89 42.73 0.80 0.09 0.58 0.01 
MTR Onset loss 0.90 15.28 0.82 -0.06 0.17 0.00 0.33 8.84 0.11 
Asymptotic recovery -0.82 12.56 0.67 0.15 1.15 0.02 0.35 9.61 0.12 
Recovery rate 0.25 1.14 0.06 0.41 8.90 0.17 -0.19 2.76 0.04 
RD Onset loss 0.79 11.77 0.63 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.49 18.64 0.24 
Asymptotic recovery -0.62 7.22 0.39 -0.15 1.24 0.02 0.21 3.52 0.04 
Recovery rate 0.34 2.12 0.11 0.25 3.30 0.06 -0.48 18.16 0.23 
T1W-MPRAGE Onset loss 0.82 12.71 0.68 0.24 3.19 0.06 0.38 11.55 0.15 
Asymptotic recovery -0.63 7.33 0.39 -0.14 1.07 0.02 0.51 20.24 0.26 
Recovery rate -0.12 0.28 0.02 0.84 37.73 0.70 0.08 0.52 0.01 

For each MR parameter, the correlation (ρ) between the first three components and the active variables, as well as their contributions and quality of representation (cos²) are reported. Absolute correlations (|ρ|) above 0.7 (usual criterion for the goodness of representation of a variable onto a specific component) are indicated in bold.

Table 4.

Quantitative values of the active variables of PCA in lesions.

Categorical variable separating lesions along PC1
Active variables loading on PC1Lesion size < 200 mm3Lesion size > 200 mm3
Onset loss(NAWM: 0%) ihMTR* 27.3 ± 9.6% 45.3 ± 14.0% 
MTR* 17.9 ± 5.7% 31.4 ± 12.6% 
RD* 21.4 ± 13.5% 45.1 ± 35.9% 
T1W-MPRAGE 22.9 ± 4.8% 27.9 ± 10.2% 
Asymptotic recovery(NAWM:100%) ihMTR* 89.3 ± 10.7% 77.9 ± 13.4% 
MTR* 91.4 ± 5.6% 87.7 ± 6.2% 
Categorical variable separating lesions along PC1
Active variables loading on PC1Lesion size < 200 mm3Lesion size > 200 mm3
Onset loss(NAWM: 0%) ihMTR* 27.3 ± 9.6% 45.3 ± 14.0% 
MTR* 17.9 ± 5.7% 31.4 ± 12.6% 
RD* 21.4 ± 13.5% 45.1 ± 35.9% 
T1W-MPRAGE 22.9 ± 4.8% 27.9 ± 10.2% 
Asymptotic recovery(NAWM:100%) ihMTR* 89.3 ± 10.7% 77.9 ± 13.4% 
MTR* 91.4 ± 5.6% 87.7 ± 6.2% 
Categorical variable separating lesions along PC2
Active variables loading on PC2Lesion > 10 mm from ventriclesLesion < 10 mm from ventricles
Recovery rate ihMTR* 2.75 ± 4.72 month-1 0.63 ± 0.59 month-1 
T1W-MPRAGE 1.32 ± 2.42 month-1 0.54 ± 0.46 month-1 
Categorical variable separating lesions along PC2
Active variables loading on PC2Lesion > 10 mm from ventriclesLesion < 10 mm from ventricles
Recovery rate ihMTR* 2.75 ± 4.72 month-1 0.63 ± 0.59 month-1 
T1W-MPRAGE 1.32 ± 2.42 month-1 0.54 ± 0.46 month-1 

Mean values of the active variables loading on the 2 first components (ρ > 0.7) — onset loss of all MR techniques and asymptotic recovery of ihMTR and MTR for PC1; ihMTR and T1W-MPRAGE recovery rates for PC2 — calculated in lesion groups with different values of categorical variables, distinct along the 2 first components (lesion size for PC1 and lesion localization for PC2). The symbol * indicates a significant difference between mean values of the active variables calculated in the categorical groups (two-sample t-test, p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons — N = 2 for the localization category, N = 6 for the size category).

4.1 Changes of metrics in new active MS lesions

Active lesions show Gd+ enhancement, which corresponds with active inflammation in a zone of myelin alteration (Katz et al., 1993). MTR decreases in acute demyelination (Dousset et al., 1992) and increases with remyelination (Deloire-Grassin et al., 2000). In studies on postmortem brain tissues of patients with MS, a strong association between MTR values and myelin content in lesions has been demonstrated (Schmierer et al., 2004). Hence generally, at the time of Gd+ enhancement, a decrease of MTR is observed in MS lesions (Brown et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2008; Giacomini et al., 2009; Lai et al., 1997; Silver et al., 1998). DTI metrics also show changes with WM alterations in MS (Filippi et al., 2001) and sensitivity to demyelination, illustrated by the increase in RD (Song et al., 2005). Hence, despite their lack of specificity for myelin (Oh et al., 2019), these metrics are considered practical markers of demyelination. Thus, the significant decrease in MTR and increase in RD in active demyelinating lesions at t0 align with these observations. Moreover, the even larger decrease in ihMTR emphasizes its strong association with demyelination processes.

Semiquantitative MTR has limitations in characterizing demyelination due to factors such as edema and inflammatory cell infiltration, which increase the free water volume, thus leading to dilution effects and potential misestimation of myelin density in acute lesions (Fernando et al., 2005; Giacomini et al., 2009). Gliosis, another prominent feature of MS lesions (Moll et al., 2011), also impacts MT and DTI-derived metrics as the dense structure of gliotic tissue would most likely contribute to increased MTR and decreased RD. An interpretation of MTR and RD variations from the perspective of myelination alone would thus overestimate myelin density in lesions. Thanks to T1D-filtering, which reduces the contribution of short T1D components (of which gliosis would be a part (Hertanu et al., 2022)) to the total ihMT signal, a lesser impact of gliosis is expected on ihMTR values. More generally, the greater specificity of ihMT for myelin may explain its stronger variations in active lesions compared with other metrics (Fig. 3). At t0, RD and MTR relative variations align with ihMTR, potentially indicating that demyelination processes drive MR metrics changes during Gd+ enhancement. However, at M12, the variations in ihMTR (relative to NAWM) were 1.6 times and 1.8 times higher than that of MTR and RD, respectively, which suggests that nonmyelin-related processes contribute to MTR and RD. This hypothesis is further supported by the intra-parameter correlations. The strong association for ihMTR between t0 and M12 suggests a physiological progression related to increased myelination. Lack of correlation for MTR and DTI between the two time points implies that additional processes beyond remyelination influence signal variations. In other words, and without commenting on any underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, the stronger intraparameter correlations between t0 and M12 suggest that the onset loss of signal is more predictive of the final recovery value for ihMT than for any other tested MR techniques.

4.2 Dynamic model of MR metrics recovery in active lesions

MT-based imaging stands out as the most utilized advanced MRI technique in MS research studies, and longitudinal changes of MTR in various lesion types have been widely reported (York et al., 2022). The dynamics of MTR during the lesion evolution is heterogeneous and depends on lesion type as synthesized in the supplementary Figure 3 in York et al. (2022). However, active lesions typically display a drop in MTR at the time of Gd enhancement followed by a 5- to 6-month period of partial recovery—indicative of demyelination followed by partial remyelination (Brown et al., 2013, 2014; Chen et al., 2008; Filippi et al., 1998, 1999; Giacomini et al., 2009; Goodkin et al., 1998; Lai et al., 1997; van Waesberghe et al., 1998). This MTR recovery profile in active lesions aligns with the canonical form shown in Figure 2 from Oh et al. (2019) and can reasonably be modeled by an exponential recovery model, as employed in our study.

Our analyses only focused on the core of active lesions, identified by the T1w-hypointense area at baseline, assumed to exhibit the highest WM alteration and myelin disruption. The lesion edges, representing the area between the entire lesion and its core and showing a higher T1w signal at baseline, were not considered. This decision was motivated by the signal dynamics observed in this area. For a significant number of lesions, the signal at the edges returned to almost isointense with the NAWM rapidly (within the first 2 months, e.g., Fig. 2) and was more indicative of a dominant inflammation or edema at baseline that rapidly washes out, rather than demyelination–remyelination processes. In addition, the width of the peripheral zone for some lesions was not always as large as that shown in Figure 2. In these cases, we suspected significant partial volume effects with the outer NAWM but also with the lesion core. Overall, we hypothesize that the signal dynamics at the edges of lesions is due to a complex mix of pathological mechanisms including demyelination–remyelination and inflammation–resorption and partial volume effects, making its interpretation extremely difficult. We provided in the Supplementary Material some representative examples of the signal observed in the core and edge of lesions, highlighting different temporal dynamics (Fig. S5). In the lesion edges, the exponential recovery model failed for more than 75% of the lesions for ihMTR and more than 50% for the other metrics. Conversely, in the lesion cores, the model successfully fitted the evolution profile of MR metrics (R²adj > 0.6) for ~80% of the studied active lesions. This figure is similar to that of an immunohistochemical study carried out on biopsies from MS patients in search of signs of remyelination in early lesions (Goldschmidt et al., 2009). While partial volume effects and low SNR, particularly in RD and ihMTR, may have contributed to the fit failure in the remaining 20% of lesions, some lesions displayed ihMTR/MTR profiles without recovery or even with decay, reflecting the diverse evolution patterns reported previously (Filippi et al., 1999; van Waesberghe et al., 1998). This variability is linked to heterogeneity in longitudinal signal changes from individual voxels in a lesion induced by opposing processes (e.g., degeneration vs. repair) and hidden in the mean value over all lesion voxels (Chen et al., 2008; Meier & Guttmann, 2006). Including a degenerative component in addition to the recovery component for a more comprehensive model (Meier & Guttmann, 2006) would allow for a more textural characterization of lesions, but at the cost of more MRI examinations. The exponential recovery behavior of MRI metrics, and in particular MTR, observed here in active lesions may somewhat align with a previous study examining the behavior of prelesion changes in MTR and describing an exponential decrease in MTR prior to lesion onset (Laule et al., 2003). Hence, a more extensive longitudinal follow-up using multimodal MR, covering both the prelesional phase and the recovery phase, could perhaps allow a more detailed characterization of certain mechanisms.

4.3 Features of remyelination in active MS lesions

The simple model used enabled detailed characterization of active MS lesions recovery. PCA incorporating model parameters from the four myelin-sensitive techniques identified distinct recovery profiles based on lesion size and localization. Normalized signal variations (% of signal change in lesions compared with contralateral NAWM) enabled common units for all MRI metrics and thus consistent interpretation of the PCA variables. Hence, the significant contribution of ihMT-related variables to principal components (>29% for onset loss and asymptotic recovery to PC1 and >42% for recovery rate to PC2, ρ > 0.7), coupled with ihMT’s proven myelin specificity (Duhamel et al., 2019; Hertanu et al., 2022), provides further support that the identified recovery profiles are myelin related and not linked to any other physiological process. PCA results also suggest that ihMT, in combination with the less specific T1w-MPRAGE (whose variables contributed >20% to PC1 and >39% to PC2) typically acquired anyway, could be an excellent candidate for a remyelination marker in therapeutic studies.

The dynamics of ihMT as modeled in our study can be mainly interpreted from the perspective of demyelination and remyelination and the PCA results may associate with some previously reported results. It is indeed now well acknowledged that a periventricular gradient of microstructural damage in both NAWM and demyelinating lesions characterizes early and established MS. Lower MTR (Brown et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2015; Pirpamer et al., 2022), longer T1 (Kolb et al., 2021; Vaneckova et al., 2022), and higher [18F ]-based PET (Poirion et al., 2021) signal were found in periventricular lesions compared with subcortical ones. In terms of evolution, immunohistochemistry analyses have shown that subcortical and deep white matter lesions present more extensive remyelination than periventricular lesions. These observations were confirmed by quantitative T1 analyses where subcortical lesions were more likely to evolve into short-T1 lesions (suggestive of remyelination), whereas juxtacortical and periventricular lesions were more likely to become long-T1 lesions (suggestive of demyelination) (Kolb et al., 2021). The reasons for such a difference and whether the mechanisms for remyelination (OPC proliferation, recruitment, differentiation, and maturation (Franklin & ffrench-Constant, 2008)) are location-dependent are not yet elucidated. Our study did not address this issue, but the more than 4-fold higher ihMTR recovery rate (2-fold for T1w-MPRAGE), suggestive of a 4-fold higher remyelination speed (2-fold for MPRAGE) in lesions distant from the ventricles than in proximal lesions, confirms that subcortical lesions are more conducive to remyelination than periventricular lesions. Nevertheless, an important nuance to the previous location-related findings must be noted. According to the PCA, the extent of remyelination, which can be assessed by the ihMTR (and other MR metrics) asymptotic recovery, does not correlate with the lesion localization, but negatively correlates with the lesion size, suggesting that remyelination extent may be impaired in large lesions despite being distant from ventricles. In other words, small subcortical lesions will remyelinate faster and to a higher level than small periventricular lesions, and large subcortical lesions will remyelinate faster than large periventricular lesions, but not necessarily reach a higher level. More generally, the size effect observed here and characterized by the association of small lesions with low extent of demyelination (small ihMTR and other MR metric onset losses) and high extent of remyelination (high ihMTR and other MR metric asymptotic recoveries)—the opposite applying for large lesions—supports previous quantitative T1 studies, which report that small lesions were more likely to evolve into short-T1 lesions (Kolb et al., 2021) compared with large ones. It should be mentioned that the genuine onset loss should have been measured at time of lesion appearance. Here instead, the onset loss used in the exponential recovery model was calculated based on the parameters’ value at the first time point at which an active lesion could be evidenced by MRI (i.e., M0 or M2), and assuming that gadolinium activity persisted for less than 4 weeks. This assumption is reinforced by a study in which weekly follow-up was carried out on RRMS patients, which showed that over 50% of new active lesions had an enhancement duration of less than 3 weeks, and almost 80% a duration of less than 4 weeks (Cotton et al., 2003). However, this study also found that enhancement duration was positively correlated with lesion size and that lesions greater than 400 mm3 may show enhancement during more than 8 weeks. In consequence, large lesions detected at M0 in this study might be older than 4 weeks, and hence the associated onset loss value might have been significantly underestimated, thus potentially confounding the differences observed as a function of lesion size. Note, however, that this should have limited impact on the estimation of the asymptotic recovery values and recovery rates (beyond noise and uncertainties), thanks to the mathematical properties of the exponential recovery model. One way of avoiding the potential effect of underestimated onset loss values associated with older lesions would be to perform the analysis only on new lesions detected at M2 (provided they are sufficiently numerous), which by definition would have been active for less than 8 weeks.

Nonetheless, the size effect observed here is also consistent with a series of observations that OPC migration from the area surrounding the lesion to areas of demyelination occurs only over a very short distance (~1 mm) during repair (Franklin & Blakemore, 1997), thus limiting the remyelination capabilities of large lesions. Of note, a work modeling the dynamics of T2w hyperintensities in lesions with two opposite processes of longitudinal intensity change, such as inflammation and degeneration versus resorption and repair (Meier & Guttmann, 2006; Meier et al., 2007), showed that after 12 weeks, the proportion of residual T2 hyperintensity (suggestive of damage) is substantially smaller in larger lesions compared with small ones. This seems to contradict our results, however, given the lack of specificity of T2w contrast and its sensitivity to multiple different mechanisms, it is possible that this observation is linked to the effects of reduced inflammation or edema resorption, rather than to remyelination mechanisms.

There is evidence for a high interpatient variability of myelin content change and that the extent of remyelination in MS lesions in response to a demyelinating insult is patient dependent. According to the PCA results, no patient effect was observed, suggesting that none of the variables in the dynamic model studied is relevant for determining an individual remyelination profile. However, given the small number of patients in this study, this result needs to be confirmed.

4.4 Stability of MR metrics in normal WM

Long-term stability in metrics from t0 to M12 in NWM, with low CoVs (<1%), suggests insensitivity to physiological changes over time. Consequently, MR metric variations beyond these CoV values might indicate alterations induced by pathological processes in patients.

4.5 Changes of metrics in contralateral NAWM

Histopathological evidence in MS indicates that pathological abnormalities in NAWM primarily involve axonal damage and loss, as well as intense microglial activation, whereas no major demyelination seems involved (Kutzelnigg et al., 2005; Moll et al., 2011). This is further confirmed by the normal range of the binding values of the [11C]PiB myelin-sensitive PET tracer obtained in NAWM of patients with MS (Bodini et al., 2016). Furthermore, Moll et al.’s study (Moll et al., 2011) combining in situ postmortem multimodal MRI and histopathology demonstrated that axonal degeneration and microglial activation accordingly accounted for the decrease of MTR and the increase of RD in NAWM tissues. Therefore, the subtle significant changes in metrics observed here in NAWM versus NWM, consistent with previous literature that reported a slight decrease in MTR (Liu et al., 2015) and an increase in RD (Kim et al., 2017) in NAWM of RRMS patients, likely result from nonmyelination-related tissue alterations. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether they reflect a direct sensitivity to these tissue changes, or whether they are due to a decrease in myelin density in the imaging voxels because of cellular entry accompanying tissue alterations. However, in accordance with other longitudinal studies using MTR (Filippi et al., 1998; Rocca et al., 1999; Rovira et al., 1999), the MR metrics’ values measured in NAWM in this study remained stable over time, which supports using contralateral NAWM as a reference for calculation of the relative variations of metrics within the core of lesions.

4.6 Limitations

The small patient cohort reduces the reliability of individual analyses (patient effect), warranting exploration in a larger cohort. In addition, a better match between the control group and the patients in terms of sex and age than in this study would also be warranted to avoid potential biases. Analyses on all lesions, however, were sufficiently large to reveal effects of lesion size and localization on remyelination. Correlation analyses (Fig. S4) underlined that a larger number of lesions would help in increasing these associations. The ihMT technique’s relatively low SNR at 1.5T limited spatial resolution to 2 mm, with potential partial volume effects. The lower SNR of ihMTR also explains the higher number of discarded lesions because of poorer fits compared with MTR. Transitioning to 3T with ihMT saturation schemes immune to transmit field B1+ inhomogeneities (Munsch et al., 2021; Soustelle et al., 2022) can overcome this, allowing higher resolution (~1.5-mm isotropic).

Measures derived from MT and T1w techniques were semiquantitative, and longer T1 values could partially offset ihMTR and MTR changes. More quantitative ihMT and MT approaches may enhance sensitivity for characterizing MS lesion recovery.

This work focused on characterizing the recovery of active MS lesions by modeling the lesion signal dynamics of myelin-sensitive MR metrics of variable specificity, including ihMTR, MTR, RD, and T1w-signal. A time-recovery exponential model was applied on the signal variations over a 12-month follow-up period for all metrics. Combining the model parameters from the four myelin-sensitive techniques in a principal component analysis enabled us to identify specific recovery profiles according to lesion size or localization. An association was established between lesion location relative to the ventricles and the ihMT and T1w-MPRAGE signal recovery rate. An association was also established between lesion size and the initial loss as well as final recovery of the ihMT and other MR techniques signal. Thanks to the specificity of ihMT for myelin, these features can be interpreted in terms of remyelination, and are in line with literature data based on ex vivo analyses using histological myelin markers. This leads to the conclusion that the ihMT technique has a promising potential as an in vivo marker of remyelination that could be used to monitor patients and evaluate the efficacy of various therapies targeting myelin recovery.

Data will be shared upon request from any qualified investigator. The ihMT preprocessing pipeline (including denoising, Gibbs-ringing artifact correction and motion correction) is available at: https://github.com/lsoustelle/ihmt_proc (hash #c9bb409).

L.S.: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing (original draft, review, and editing), Visualization. O.M.G. and G.D.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing (original draft, review, and editing), and Supervision. S.M., A.H., S.G.: Data analysis and Visualization. L.P.: Data acquisition. M.G., J.-P.R., and J.P.: Review and Editing. G.V. and D.C.A.: Methodology, Writing, and Review.

This work was supported by the SATT Sud-Est (France), the French Association pour la Recherche sur la Sclérose En Plaques (ARSEP), Roche Research Foundation (Switzerland), and French National Research Agency, ANR VERISMO [ANR‐17‐CE18‐0030]. This work was performed by a laboratory member of France Life Imaging network (grant ANR-11-INBS-0006).

We have no competing interests to declare.

The authors thank B. Audoin and A. Maarouf for their medical support in patient recruitment as well as V. Gimenez, P. Viout, and C. Costes for technical support and management.

Supplementary material for this article is available with the online version here: https://doi.org/10.1162/imag_a_00235.

Ades-Aron
,
B.
,
Veraart
,
J.
,
Kochunov
,
P.
,
McGuire
,
S.
,
Sherman
,
P.
,
Kellner
,
E.
,
Novikov
,
D. S.
, &
Fieremans
,
E.
(
2018
).
Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of the diffusion parameter EStImation with Gibbs and NoisE removal pipeline
.
NeuroImage
,
183
,
532
543
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.066
Andersson
,
J. L. R.
,
Graham
,
M. S.
,
Zsoldos
,
E.
, &
Sotiropoulos
,
S. N.
(
2016
).
Incorporating outlier detection and replacement into a non-parametric framework for movement and distortion correction of diffusion MR images
.
NeuroImage
,
141
,
556
572
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.058
Andersson
,
J. L. R.
,
Skare
,
S.
, &
Ashburner
,
J.
(
2003
).
How to correct susceptibility distortions in spin-echo echo-planar images: Application to diffusion tensor imaging
.
NeuroImage
,
20
(
2
),
870
888
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00336-7
Avants
,
B.
,
Klein
,
A.
,
Tustison
,
N. J.
,
Woo
,
J.
, &
Gee
,
J. C.
(
2010
).
Evaluation of open-access, automated brain extraction methods on multi-site multi-disorder data
.
16th Annual Meeting for the Organization of Human Brain Mapping
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.002
Avants
,
B.
,
Tustison
,
N. J.
, &
Song
,
G.
(
2009
).
Advanced normalization tools: V1.0
.
The Insight Journal
. https://doi.org/10.54294/uvnhin
Avants
,
B. B.
,
Tustison
,
N. J.
,
Song
,
G.
,
Cook
,
P. A.
,
Klein
,
A.
, &
Gee
,
J. C.
(
2011
).
A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration
.
NeuroImage
,
54
(
3
),
2033
2044
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.025
Avants
,
B. B.
,
Tustison
,
N. J.
,
Wu
,
J.
,
Cook
,
P. A.
, &
Gee
,
J. C.
(
2011
).
An open source multivariate framework for n-tissue segmentation with evaluation on public data
.
Neuroinformatics
,
9
(
4
),
381
400
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-011-9109-y
Battaglini
,
M.
,
Jenkinson
,
M.
, &
De Stefano
,
N
. (
2012
).
Evaluating and reducing the impact of white matter lesions on brain volume measurements
.
Human Brain Mapping
,
33
(
9
),
2062
2071
. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21344
Bodini
,
B.
,
Veronese
,
M.
,
García-Lorenzo
,
D.
,
Battaglini
,
M.
,
Poirion
,
E.
,
Chardain
,
A.
,
Freeman
,
L.
,
Louapre
,
C.
,
Tchikviladze
,
M.
,
Papeix
,
C.
,
Dollé
,
F.
,
Zalc
,
B.
,
Lubetzki
,
C.
,
Bottlaender
,
M.
,
Turkheimer
,
F.
, &
Stankoff
,
B.
(
2016
).
Dynamic imaging of individual remyelination profiles in multiple sclerosis: Imaging remyelination in multiple sclerosis
.
Annals of Neurology
,
79
(
5
),
726
738
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24620
Brown
,
J. W. L.
,
Pardini
,
M.
,
Brownlee
,
W. J.
,
Fernando
,
K.
,
Samson
,
R. S.
,
Carrasco
Prados
, F.,
Ourselin
,
S.
,
Gandini
Wheeler-Kingshott, C. A. M.
,
Miller
,
D. H.
, &
Chard
,
D. T.
(
2017
).
An abnormal periventricular magnetization transfer ratio gradient occurs early in multiple sclerosis
.
Brain
,
140
(
2
),
387
398
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww296
Brown
,
R. A.
,
Narayanan
,
S.
, &
Arnold
,
D. L.
(
2013
).
Segmentation of magnetization transfer ratio lesions for longitudinal analysis of demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis
.
NeuroImage
,
66
,
103
109
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.059
Brown
,
R. A.
,
Narayanan
,
S.
, &
Arnold
,
D. L.
(
2014
).
Imaging of repeated episodes of demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis
.
NeuroImage: Clinical
,
6
,
20
25
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2014.06.009
Chen
,
J. T.
,
Collins
,
D. L.
,
Atkins
,
H. L.
,
Freedman
,
M. S.
,
Arnold
,
D. L.
, &
Group
the Canadian MS/BMT Study
. (
2008
).
Magnetization transfer ratio evolution with demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis lesions
.
Annals of Neurology
,
63
(
2
),
254
262
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21302
Cotton
,
F.
,
Weiner
,
H. L.
,
Jolesz
,
F. A.
, &
Guttmann
,
C. R. G.
(
2003
).
MRI contrast uptake in new lesions in relapsing-remitting MS followed at weekly intervals
.
Neurology
,
60
(
4
),
640
646
. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000046587.83503.1E
Dale
,
A. M.
,
Fischl
,
B.
, &
Sereno
,
M. I.
(
1999
).
Cortical surface-based analysis
.
NeuroImage
,
9
(
2
),
179
194
. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1998.0395
Deloire-Grassin
,
M. S.
,
Brochet
,
B.
,
Quesson
,
B.
,
Delalande
,
C.
,
Dousset
,
V.
,
Canioni
,
P.
, &
Petry
,
K. G.
(
2000
).
In vivo evaluation of remyelination in rat brain by magnetization transfer imaging
.
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
,
178
(
1
),
10
16
. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-510x(00)00331-2
Diedenhofen
,
B.
, &
Musch
,
J.
(
2015
).
cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations
.
PLOS ONE
,
10
(
4
),
e0121945
. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945
Dousset
,
V.
,
Grossman
,
R. I.
,
Ramer
,
K. N.
,
Schnall
,
M. D.
,
Young
,
L. H.
,
Gonzalez-Scarano
,
F.
,
Lavi
,
E.
, &
Cohen
,
J. A.
(
1992
).
Experimental allergic encephalomyelitis and multiple sclerosis: Lesion characterization with magnetization transfer imaging
.
Radiology
,
182
(
2
),
483
491
. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.182.2.1732968
Duhamel
,
G.
,
Prevost
,
V. H.
,
Cayre
,
M.
,
Hertanu
,
A.
,
Mchinda
,
S.
,
Carvalho
,
V. N.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Durbec
,
P.
,
Alsop
,
D. C.
, &
Girard
,
O. M.
(
2019
).
Validating the sensitivity of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) MRI to myelin with fluorescence microscopy
.
NeuroImage
,
199
,
289
303
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.061
Fernando
,
K. T. M.
,
Tozer
,
D. J.
,
Miszkiel
,
K. A.
,
Gordon
,
R. M.
,
Swanton
,
J. K.
,
Dalton
,
C. M.
,
Barker
,
G. J.
,
Plant
,
G. T.
,
Thompson
,
A. J.
, &
Miller
,
D. H.
(
2005
).
Magnetization transfer histograms in clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis
.
Brain
,
128
(
12
),
2911
2925
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh654
Filippi
,
M.
,
Cercignani
,
M.
,
Inglese
,
M.
,
Horsfield
,
M. A.
, &
Comi
,
G.
(
2001
).
Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis
.
Neurology
,
56
,
304
311
. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.56.3.304
Filippi
,
M.
,
Preziosa
,
P.
,
Banwell
,
B. L.
,
Barkhof
,
F.
,
Ciccarelli
,
O.
,
De Stefano
,
N.
,
Geurts
,
J. J. G.
,
Paul
,
F.
,
Reich
,
D. S.
,
Toosy
,
A. T.
,
Traboulsee
,
A.
,
Wattjes
,
M. P.
,
Yousry
,
T. A.
,
Gass
,
A.
,
Lubetzki
,
C.
,
Weinshenker
,
B. G.
, &
Rocca
,
M. A.
(
2019
).
Assessment of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: Practical guidelines
.
Brain
,
142
(
7
),
1858
1875
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz144
Filippi
,
M.
,
Rocca
,
M. A.
,
Ciccarelli
,
O.
,
De Stefano
,
N.
,
Evangelou
,
N.
,
Kappos
,
L.
,
Rovira
,
A.
,
Sastre-Garriga
,
J.
,
Tintorè
,
M.
,
Frederiksen
,
J. L.
,
Gasperini
,
C.
,
Palace
,
J.
,
Reich
,
D. S.
,
Banwell
,
B.
,
Montalban
,
X.
, &
Barkhof
,
F.
(
2016
).
MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines
.
The Lancet Neurology
,
15
(
3
),
292
303
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00393-2
Filippi
,
M.
,
Rocca
,
M. A.
,
Rizzo
,
G.
,
Horsfield
,
M. A.
,
Rovaris
,
M.
,
Minicucci
,
L.
,
Colombo
,
B.
, &
Comi
,
G.
(
1998
).
Magnetization transfer ratios in multiple sclerosis lesions enhancing after different doses of gadolinium
.
Neurology
,
50
,
1289
1293
. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.50.5.1289
Filippi
,
M.
,
Rocca
,
M. A.
,
Sormani
,
M. P.
,
Pereira
,
C.
, &
Comi
,
G.
(
1999
).
Short-term evolution of individual enhancing MS lesions studied with magnetization transfer imaging
.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
,
17
(
7
),
979
984
. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0730-725x(99)00049-1
Franklin
,
R. J.
, &
Blakemore
,
W. F.
(
1997
).
To what extent is oligodendrocyte progenitor migration a limiting factor in the remyelination of multiple sclerosis lesions
?
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
,
3
(
2
),
84
87
. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245859700300205
Franklin
,
R. J. M.
, &
ffrench-Constant
,
C.
(
2008
).
Remyelination in the CNS: From biology to therapy
.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
,
9
(
11
),
839
855
. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2480
Franklin
,
R. J. M.
,
ffrench-Constant
,
C.
,
Edgar
,
J. M.
, &
Smith
,
K. J.
(
2012
).
Neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis
.
Nature Reviews Neurology
,
8
(
11
),
624
634
. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2012.200
Galbusera
,
R.
,
Bahn
,
E.
,
Weigel
,
M.
,
Schaedelin
,
S.
,
Franz
,
J.
,
Lu
,
P.
,
Barakovic
,
M.
,
Melie‐Garcia
,
L.
,
Dechent
,
P.
,
Lutti
,
A.
,
Sati
,
P.
,
Reich
,
D. S.
,
Nair
,
G.
,
Brück
,
W.
,
Kappos
,
L.
,
Stadelmann
,
C.
, &
Granziera
,
C.
(
2022
).
Postmortem quantitative MRI disentangles histological lesion types in multiple sclerosis
.
Brain Pathology
,
33
(
6
),
e13136
. https://doi.org/10.1111/bpa.13136
Giacomini
,
P. S.
,
Levesque
,
I. R.
,
Ribeiro
,
L.
,
Narayanan
,
S.
,
Francis
,
S. J.
,
Pike
,
G. B.
, &
Arnold
,
D. L.
(
2009
).
Measuring demyelination and remyelination in acute multiple sclerosis lesion voxels
.
Archives of Neurology
,
66
(
3
),
7
. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2008.578
Goldschmidt
,
T.
,
Antel
,
J.
,
Konig
,
F. B.
,
Bruck
,
W.
, &
Kuhlmann
,
T.
(
2009
).
Remyelination capacity of the MS brain decreases with disease chronicity
.
Neurology
,
72
,
1914
1921
. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181a8260a
Goodkin
,
D. E.
,
Rooney
,
W. D.
,
Sloan
,
R.
,
Bacchetti
,
P.
,
Gee
,
L.
,
Vermathen
,
M.
,
Waubant
,
E.
,
Abundo
,
M.
,
Majumdar
,
S.
,
Nelson
,
S.
, &
Weiner
,
M. W.
(
1998
).
A serial study of new MS lesions and the white matter from which they arise
.
Neurology
,
51
(
6
),
1689
1697
. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.51.6.1689
Grussu
,
F.
,
Battiston
,
M.
,
Veraart
,
J.
,
Schneider
,
T.
,
Cohen-Adad
,
J.
,
Shepherd
,
T. M.
,
Alexander
,
D. C.
,
Fieremans
,
E.
,
Novikov
,
D. S.
, &
Gandini
Wheeler-Kingshott, C. A. M.
(
2020
).
Multi-parametric quantitative in vivo spinal cord MRI with unified signal readout and image denoising
.
NeuroImage
,
217
,
116884
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116884
Guo
,
C.
,
Ferreira
,
D.
,
Fink
,
K.
,
Westman
,
E.
, &
Granberg
,
T.
(
2019
).
Repeatability and reproducibility of FreeSurfer, FSL-SIENAX and SPM brain volumetric measurements and the effect of lesion filling in multiple sclerosis
.
European Radiology
,
29
(
3
),
1355
1364
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5710-x
Hertanu
,
A.
,
Soustelle
,
L.
,
Buron
,
J.
,
Le Priellec
,
J.
,
Cayre
,
M.
,
Le Troter
,
A.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Alsop
,
D. C.
,
Durbec
,
P.
,
Girard
,
O. M.
, &
Duhamel
,
G.
(
2022
).
T 1D ‐weighted ihMT imaging— Part II. Investigating the long‐ and short‐T1D components correlation with myelin content. Comparison with R1 and the macromolecular proton fraction
.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
,
87
(
5
),
2329
2346
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29140
Josse
,
J.
, &
Husson
,
F.
(
2016
).
missMDA: A package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis
.
Journal of Statistical Software
,
70
(
1
). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v070.i01
Katz
,
D.
,
Taubenberger
,
J. K.
,
Cannella
,
B.
,
McFarlin
,
D. E.
,
Raine
,
C. S.
, &
McFarland
,
H. F.
(
1993
).
Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging findings and lesion development in chronic, active multiple sclerosis
.
Annals of Neurology
,
34
(
5
),
661
669
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410340507
Kellner
,
E.
,
Dhital
,
B.
,
Kiselev
,
V. G.
, &
Reisert
,
M.
(
2016
).
Gibbs-ringing artifact removal based on local subvoxel-shifts
.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
,
76
(
5
),
1574
1581
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26054
Kim
,
S.-H.
,
Kwak
,
K.
,
Hyun
,
J.-W.
,
Joung
,
A.
,
Lee
,
S. H.
,
Choi
,
Y.-H.
,
Lee
,
J.-M.
, &
Kim
,
H. J.
(
2017
).
Diffusion tensor imaging of normal-appearing white matter in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and multiple sclerosis
.
European Journal of Neurology
,
24
(
7
),
966
973
. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13321
Kitzler
,
H. H.
,
Wahl
,
H.
,
Kuntke
,
P.
,
Deoni
,
S. C. L.
,
Ziemssen
,
T.
,
Linn
,
J.
, &
Köhler
,
C.
(
2022
).
Exploring in vivo lesion myelination dynamics: Longitudinal myelin water imaging in early multiple sclerosis
.
NeuroImage: Clinical
,
36
,
103192
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103192
Kolb
,
H.
,
Absinta
,
M.
,
Beck
,
E. S.
,
Ha
,
S.
,
Song
,
Y.
,
Norato
,
G.
,
Cortese
,
I.
,
Sati
,
P.
,
Nair
,
G.
, &
Reich
,
D. S.
(
2021
).
7T MRI differentiates remyelinated from demyelinated multiple sclerosis lesions
.
Annals of Neurology
,
90
(
4
),
612
626
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.26194
Kutzelnigg
,
A.
,
Lucchinetti
,
C. F.
,
Stadelmann
,
C.
,
Brück
,
W.
,
Rauschka
,
H.
,
Bergmann
,
M.
,
Schmidbauer
,
M.
,
Parisi
,
J. E.
, &
Lassmann
,
H.
(
2005
).
Cortical demyelination and diffuse white matter injury in multiple sclerosis
.
Brain: A Journal of Neurology
,
128
(
Pt 11
),
2705
2712
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh641
Lai
,
H. M.
,
Davie
,
C. A.
,
Gass
,
A.
,
Barker
,
G. J.
,
Webb
,
S.
,
Tofts
,
P. S.
,
Thompson
,
A. J.
,
McDonald
,
W. I.
, &
Miller
,
D. H.
(
1997
).
Serial magnetisation transfer ratios in gadolinium-enhancing lesions in multiple sclerosis
.
Journal of Neurology
,
244
(
5
),
308
311
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004150050092
Lassmann
,
H.
,
Brück
,
W.
,
Lucchinetti
,
C.
, &
Rodriguez
,
M.
(
1997
).
Remyelination in multiple sclerosis
.
Multiple Sclerosis
,
3
,
133
136
. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245859700300213
Laule
,
C.
,
Vavasour
,
I. M.
,
Whittall
,
K. P.
,
Oger
,
J.
,
Paty
,
D. W.
,
Li
,
D. K. B.
,
MacKay
,
A. L.
, &
Arnold
,
D. L.
(
2003
).
Evolution of focal and diffusemagnetisation transfer abnormalitiesin multiple sclerosis
.
Journal of Neurology
,
250
(
8
),
924
931
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-003-1115-z
Liu
,
Z.
,
Pardini
,
M.
,
Yaldizli
,
Ö.
,
Sethi
,
V.
,
Muhlert
,
N.
,
Wheeler-Kingshott
,
C. A. M.
,
Samson
,
R. S.
,
Miller
,
D. H.
, &
Chard
,
D. T.
(
2015
).
Magnetization transfer ratio measures in normal-appearing white matter show periventricular gradient abnormalities in multiple sclerosis
.
Brain
,
138
(
5
),
1239
1246
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv065
Mchinda
,
S.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Prevost
,
V. H.
,
Le Troter
,
A.
,
Rapacchi
,
S.
,
Guye
,
M.
,
Pelletier
,
J.
,
Ranjeva
,
J.-P.
,
Alsop
,
D. C.
,
Duhamel
,
G.
, &
Girard
,
O. M.
(
2018
).
Whole brain inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) imaging: Sensitivity enhancement within a steady-state gradient echo sequence
.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
,
79
(
5
),
2607
2619
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26907
Meier
,
D. S.
, &
Guttmann
,
C. R. G.
(
2006
).
MRI time series modeling of MS lesion development
.
NeuroImage
,
32
(
2
),
531
537
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.181
Meier
,
D. S.
,
Weiner
,
H. L.
, &
Guttmann
,
C. R. G.
(
2007
).
Time-series modeling of multiple sclerosis disease activity: A promising window on disease progression and repair potential
?
Neurotherapeutics
,
4
(
3
),
485
498
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurt.2007.05.008
Moll
,
N. M.
,
Rietsch
,
A. M.
,
Thomas
,
S.
,
Ransohoff
,
A. J.
,
Lee
,
J.-C.
,
Fox
,
R.
,
Chang
,
A.
,
Ransohoff
,
R. M.
, &
Fisher
,
E.
(
2011
).
Multiple sclerosis normal-appearing white matter: Pathology-imaging correlations
.
Annals of Neurology
,
70
(
5
),
764
773
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22521
Munsch
,
F.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Taso
,
M.
,
Girard
,
O.
,
Guidon
,
A.
,
Duhamel
,
G.
, &
Alsop
,
D. C.
(
2021
).
Characterization of the cortical myeloarchitecture with inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging (ihMT)
.
NeuroImage
,
225
,
117442
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117442
Oh
,
J.
,
Ontaneda
,
D.
,
Azevedo
,
C.
,
Klawiter
,
E. C.
,
Absinta
,
M.
,
Arnold
,
D. L.
,
Bakshi
,
R.
,
Calabresi
,
P. A.
,
Crainiceanu
,
C.
,
Dewey
,
B.
,
Freeman
,
L.
,
Gauthier
,
S.
,
Henry
,
R.
,
Inglese
,
M.
,
Kolind
,
S.
,
Li
,
D. K. B.
,
Mainero
,
C.
,
Menon
,
R. S.
,
Nair
,
G.
, …
Reich
,
S.D.
(
2019
).
Imaging outcome measures of neuroprotection and repair in MS: A consensus statement from NAIMS
.
Neurology
,
92
(
11
),
519
533
. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007099
Patrikios
,
P.
,
Stadelmann
,
C.
,
Kutzelnigg
,
A.
,
Rauschka
,
H.
,
Schmidbauer
,
M.
,
Laursen
,
H.
,
Sorensen
,
P. S.
,
Brück
,
W.
,
Lucchinetti
,
C.
, &
Lassmann
,
H.
(
2006
).
Remyelination is extensive in a subset of multiple sclerosis patients
.
Brain: A Journal of Neurology
,
129
(
Pt 12
),
3165
3172
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl217
Pirpamer
,
L.
,
Kincses
,
B.
,
Kincses
,
Z. T.
,
Kiss
,
C.
,
Damulina
,
A.
,
Khalil
,
M.
,
Stollberger
,
R.
,
Schmidt
,
R.
,
Enzinger
,
C.
, &
Ropele
,
S.
(
2022
).
Periventricular magnetisation transfer abnormalities in early multiple sclerosis
.
NeuroImage: Clinical
,
34
,
103012
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103012
Poirion
,
E.
,
Tonietto
,
M.
,
Lejeune
,
F.-X.
,
Ricigliano
,
V. A. G.
,
Boudot De La Motte
,
M.
,
Benoit
,
C.
,
Bera
,
G.
,
Kuhnast
,
B.
,
Bottlaender
,
M.
,
Bodini
,
B.
, &
Stankoff
,
B.
(
2021
).
Structural and clinical correlates of a periventricular gradient of neuroinflammation in multiple sclerosis
.
Neurology
,
96
(
14
),
e1865
e1875
. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000011700
Prineas
,
J. W.
,
Barnard
,
R. O.
,
Kwon
,
E. E.
,
Sharer
,
L. R.
, &
Cho
,
E.-S.
(
1993
).
Multiple sclerosis: Remyelination of nascent lesions
.
Annals of Neurology
,
33
(
2
),
137
151
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410330203
R Core Team
. (
2022
).
R: A language and environment for statistical computing
[Logiciel]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rasoanandrianina
,
H.
,
Demortière
,
S.
,
Trabelsi
,
A.
,
Ranjeva
,
J. P.
,
Girard
,
O.
,
Duhamel
,
G.
,
Guye
,
M.
,
Pelletier
,
J.
,
Audoin
,
B.
, &
Callot
,
V.
(
2020
).
Sensitivity of the inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging technique to spinal cord damage in multiple sclerosis
.
American Journal of Neuroradiology
,
41
(
5
),
929
937
. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6554
Rocca
,
M. A.
,
Mastronardo
,
G.
,
Rodegher
,
M.
,
Comi
,
G.
, &
Filippi
,
M.
(
1999
).
Long-term changes of magnetization transfer–derived measures from patients with relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis
.
American Journal of Neuroradiology
,
20
(
5
),
821
827
. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510379613
Rovira
,
A.
,
Alonso
,
J.
,
Cucurella
,
G.
,
Nos
,
C.
,
Tintore
,
M.
,
Pedraza
,
S.
,
Rio
,
J.
, &
Montalban
,
X.
(
1999
).
Evolution of multiple sclerosis lesions on serial contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and magnetization-transfer MR images
.
American Journal of Neuroradiology
,
20
,
1939
1945
. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-5728(95)99023-c
Schmierer
,
K.
,
Scaravilli
,
F.
,
Altmann
,
D. R.
,
Barker
,
G. J.
, &
Miller
,
D. H.
(
2004
).
Magnetization transfer ratio and myelin in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain
.
Annals of Neurology
,
56
(
3
),
407
415
. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20202
Silver
,
N. C.
,
Lai
,
M.
,
Symms
,
M. R.
,
Barker
,
G. J.
,
McDonald
,
W. I.
, &
Miller
,
D. H.
(
1998
).
Serial magnetization transfer imaging to characterize the early evolution of new MS lesions
.
Neurology
,
51
(
3
),
758
764
. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.51.3.758
Song
,
S.-K.
,
Yoshino
,
J.
,
Le
,
T. Q.
,
Lin
,
S.-J.
,
Sun
,
S.-W.
,
Cross
,
A. H.
, &
Armstrong
,
R. C.
(
2005
).
Demyelination increases radial diffusivity in corpus callosum of mouse brain
.
NeuroImage
,
26
(
1
),
132
140
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.028
Soustelle
,
L.
,
Lamy
,
J.
,
Le Troter
,
A.
,
Hertanu
,
A.
,
Guye
,
M.
,
Ranjeva
,
J.-P.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Alsop
,
D. C.
,
Pelletier
,
J.
,
Girard
,
O.
, &
Duhamel
,
G.
(
2020
).
A motion correction strategy for multi-contrast based 3D parametric imaging: Application to inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) [Preprint]
.
Biorxiv
. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.11.292649
Soustelle
,
L.
,
Troalen
,
T.
,
Hertanu
,
A.
,
Mchinda
,
S.
,
Ranjeva
,
J.
,
Guye
,
M.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Alsop
,
D. C.
,
Duhamel
,
G.
, &
Girard
,
O. M.
(
2022
).
A strategy to reduce the sensitivity of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) imaging to radiofrequency transmit field variations at 3 T
.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
,
87
(
3
),
1346
1359
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29055
Steiger
,
J. H.
(
1980
).
Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix
.
Psychological Bulletin
,
87
(
2
),
245
251
. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245
Thaler
,
C.
,
Faizy
,
T.
,
Sedlacik
,
J.
,
Holst
,
B.
,
Stellmann
,
J.-P.
,
Young
,
K. L.
,
Heesen
,
C.
,
Fiehler
,
J.
, &
Siemonsen
,
S.
(
2015
).
T1- thresholds in black holes increase clinical-radiological correlation in multiple sclerosis patients
.
PLOS ONE
,
10
(
12
),
e0144693
. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144693
Tournier
,
J.-D.
,
Smith
,
R.
,
Raffelt
,
D.
,
Tabbara
,
R.
,
Dhollander
,
T.
,
Pietsch
,
M.
,
Christiaens
,
D.
,
Jeurissen
,
B.
,
Yeh
,
C.-H.
, &
Connelly
,
A.
(
2019
).
MRtrix3: A fast, flexible and open software framework for medical image processing and visualisation
.
NeuroImage
,
202
,
116137
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116137
Tustison
,
N. J.
,
Avants
,
B. B.
,
Cook
,
P. A.
,
Zheng
Yuanjie
,
Egan
,
A.
,
Yushkevich
,
P. A.
, &
Gee
,
J. C.
(
2010
).
N4ITK: Improved N3 bias correction
.
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
,
29
(
6
),
1310
1320
. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2010.2046908
Van Obberghen
,
E.
,
Mchinda
,
S.
,
le Troter
,
A.
,
Prevost
,
V. H.
,
Viout
,
P.
,
Guye
,
M.
,
Varma
,
G.
,
Alsop
,
D. C.
,
Ranjeva
,
J.-P.
,
Pelletier
,
J.
,
Girard
,
O.
, &
Duhamel
,
G.
(
2018
).
Evaluation of the sensitivity of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) MRI for multiple sclerosis
.
AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology
,
39
(
4
),
634
641
. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5563
van Waesberghe
,
J. H.
,
van Walderveen
,
M. A.
, &
Castelijns
,
J. A.
(
1998
).
Patterns of lesion development in multiple sclerosis: Longitudinal observations with T1-weighted spin-echo and magnetization transfer MR
.
AJNR American Journal of Neuroradiology
,
19
,
675
683
. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0730-725x(97)00310-x
Vaneckova
,
M.
,
Piredda
,
G. F.
,
Andelova
,
M.
,
Krasensky
,
J.
,
Uher
,
T.
,
Srpova
,
B.
,
Havrdova
,
E. K.
,
Vodehnalova
,
K.
,
Horakova
,
D.
,
Hilbert
,
T.
,
Maréchal
,
B.
,
Fartaria
,
M. J.
,
Ravano
,
V.
, &
Kober
,
T.
(
2022
).
Periventricular gradient of T1 tissue alterations in multiple sclerosis
.
NeuroImage: Clinical
,
34
,
103009
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103009
Varma
,
G.
,
Duhamel
,
G.
,
de Bazelaire
,
C.
, &
Alsop
,
D. C.
(
2015
).
Magnetization transfer from inhomogeneously broadened lines: A potential marker for myelin
.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
,
73
(
2
),
614
622
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25174
Varma
,
G.
,
Girard
,
O. M.
,
Prevost
,
V. H.
,
Grant
,
A.
,
Duhamel
,
G. D.
, &
Alsop
,
D. C.
(
2015
).
Interpretation of magnetization transfer from inhomogeneously broadened lines (ihMT) in tissues as a dipolar order effect within motion restricted molecules
.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance
,
260
,
67
76
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2015.08.024
Veraart
,
J.
,
Fieremans
,
E.
, &
Novikov
,
D. S.
(
2016
).
Diffusion MRI noise mapping using random matrix theory
.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
,
76
(
5
),
1582
1593
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26059
Veraart
,
J.
,
Novikov
,
D. S.
,
Christiaens
,
D.
,
Ades-aron
,
B.
,
Sijbers
,
J.
, &
Fieremans
,
E.
(
2016
).
Denoising of diffusion MRI using random matrix theory
.
NeuroImage
,
142
,
394
406
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.016
Wang
,
C. T.
,
Barnett
,
M.
, &
Barnett
,
Y.
(
2019
).
Imaging the multiple sclerosis lesion: Insights into pathogenesis, progression and repair
.
Current Opinion in Neurology
,
32
(
3
),
338
345
. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000698
York
,
E. N.
,
Thrippleton
,
M. J.
,
Meijboom
,
R.
,
Hunt
,
D. P. J.
, &
Waldman
,
A. D.
(
2022
).
Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Brain Communications
,
4
(
2
),
fcac088
. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac088
Yushkevich
,
P. A.
,
Piven
,
J.
,
Hazlett
,
H. C.
,
Smith
,
R. G.
,
Ho
,
S.
,
Gee
,
J. C.
, &
Gerig
,
G.
(
2006
).
User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability
.
NeuroImage
,
31
(
3
),
1116
1128
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015
Zhang
,
L.
,
Wen
,
B.
,
Chen
,
T.
,
Tian
,
H.
,
Xue
,
H.
,
Ren
,
H.
,
Li
,
L.
,
Fan
,
Q.
, &
Ren
,
Z.
(
2020
).
A comparison study of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer (ihMT) and magnetization transfer (MT) in multiple sclerosis based on whole brain acquisition at 3.0 T
.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
,
70
,
43
49
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2020.03.010
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Supplementary data