Intelligent MR Performance for Patients, Clinicians and Administrators

This illustration show the complexity of the data obtained from one single patient with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury. Different imaging approaches and techniques have their own unique sensitivity in assessing different aspects of neuroanatomy and neuropathology. What can be seen on images also changes with time since injury. Data from comprehensive clinical and functional assessments using a range of other tools is also important for evaluating patient outcome. Through data harmonization and large-scale analyses of data combined across multiple research sites, the ENIGMA Brain Injury will develop and test methods and procedures for making sense of the complexity in this data. Images courtesy of Olsen et al., Brain Imaging and Behavior, 2020

(A) The fMRI hyperscanning environment. The clinician (1) and patient (2) were positioned in two different 3T MRI scanners. An audio-video link enabled online communication between the two scanners (3), and video images were used to extract frame-by-frame facial expression metrics. During simultaneous acquisition of blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD)–fMRI data, the clinician used a button box (4) to apply electroacupuncture (EA) treatment (real/sham, double-blind) to the patient (5) to alleviate evoked pressure pain to the leg (6; Hokanson cuff inflation). Pain and affect related to the treatment were rated after each trial. (B) Study overview. After an initial behavioral visit, each individual participated in a Clinical-Interaction (hyperscan preceded by a clinical intake) and No-Interaction condition (hyperscan without a preceding intake), in a counterbalanced order, with two different partners. (C) Experimental protocol. Each hyperscan was composed of 12 repeated trials (four verum EA, four sham EA, and four no treatment) in a pseudo-randomized order. After a resting period (far left), both participants were shown a visual cue to indicate whether the next pain stimulus would be treated (green frame) or not treated (red frame) by the clinician. These cues prompted clinicians prepare to either apply or not apply treatment while evoking corresponding anticipation for the patient. Following the anticipation cue, moderately painful pressure pain was applied to the patient’s left leg, while the clinician applied or did not apply treatment, respectively. After another resting period, participants rated pain (patients), vicarious pain (clinicians), and affect (both) using a visual analog scale (VAS).