Development and optimization of advanced cerebrospinal MRI methods for clinical applications

Development and optimization of advanced cerebrospinal MRI methods for clinical applications - Methods development for cerebrospinal MRI

Status

Recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00036722

Enrollment

125

Registered

2025-05-12

Start date

2025-08-20

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-10-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

MRI methods development for cerebrospinal MRI

Interventions

Group 1: A total of 80 healthy volunteers and 45 patients with multiple sclerosis will be included in the study. Each participant will take part in only one study examination, which will last approxim

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: (i) Healthy adults without neurological diseases (ii) Patients with Multiple Sclerosis with at leas one spinal cord leasion (known from previous examinations) • capacity to consent • written informed consent after comprehensive explanation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: • Individuals unable to provide written informed consent • History of psychiatric or neurological disorders (first phase) • Severe internal or systemic disease • Contraindications to MRI (e.g., pacemakers, artificial heart valves, Cardioseal, aneurysm clips, implanted magnetic metal components [screws, plates from surgeries], cochlear implants, metal or grenade fragments, acupuncture needles, insulin pumps, non-removable piercings, claustrophobia, etc.) • Pregnancy • Carotid artery stents

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Not directly applicable to this type of study. The success of the study and the achievement of the primary/secondary objectives will be assessed based on the following criteria: • Reduction of acquisition time: Comparable or improved image quality with reduced acquisition time compared to the respective non-optimized, original imaging method. Image quality should be assessed both visually and quantitatively (e.g., using the Structural Similarity Index and similar metrics). • Optimization of other imaging parameters and the use of motion correction and magnetic field homogenization techniques: Improved image quality and reduced impact of motion- and susceptibility-induced image artifacts compared to the respective non-optimized, original imaging method. Image quality should be assessed both visually and quantitatively (e.g., using the Structural Similarity Index and similar metrics). • Quantification of tissue properties: Agreement of measured parameter values (T1, T2, T2, susceptibility, MT, diffusivity, and perfusion or blood-brain barrier permeability) in the healthy human brain and spinal cord with known literature values. • Diagnostic suitability: Agreement and reliability in the depiction of pathological anomalies (e.g., MS lesions) in the human brain and spinal cord of MS patients compared to clinically established imaging methods. • Quantification of tissue properties in patients: Agreement of measured parameter values or the trend of deviation (T1, T2, T2, PD, susceptibility, MT, diffusivity, and perfusion or blood-brain barrier permeability) in the human brain and spinal cord with known literature values for MS patients.	—

Measure

Time frame

Not directly applicable to this type of study. The success of the study and the achievement of the primary/secondary objectives will be assessed based on the following criteria: • Reduction of acquisition time: Comparable or improved image quality with reduced acquisition time compared to the respective non-optimized, original imaging method. Image quality should be assessed both visually and quantitatively (e.g., using the Structural Similarity Index and similar metrics). • Optimization of other imaging parameters and the use of motion correction and magnetic field homogenization techniques: Improved image quality and reduced impact of motion- and susceptibility-induced image artifacts compared to the respective non-optimized, original imaging method. Image quality should be assessed both visually and quantitatively (e.g., using the Structural Similarity Index and similar metrics). • Quantification of tissue properties: Agreement of measured parameter values (T1, T2, T2*, susceptibility, MT, diffusivity, and perfusion or blood-brain barrier permeability) in the healthy human brain and spinal cord with known literature values. • Diagnostic suitability: Agreement and reliability in the depiction of pathological anomalies (e.g., MS lesions) in the human brain and spinal cord of MS patients compared to clinically established imaging methods. • Quantification of tissue properties in patients: Agreement of measured parameter values or the trend of deviation (T1, T2, T2*, PD, susceptibility, MT, diffusivity, and perfusion or blood-brain barrier permeability) in the human brain and spinal cord with known literature values for MS patients.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Not directly applicable to this type of study. See Primary outcome.	—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactChristine Preibisch

Institut für Neuroradiologie, TUM Universitätsklinikum, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München

preibisch@tum.de0049 89 4140 7631

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026