S M Smith1, N De Stefano, M Jenkinson, P M Matthews. 1. Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, Department of Clinical Neurology, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, England. steve@fmrib.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quantitative measurement of change in brain size and shape (e.g., to estimate atrophy) is an important current area of research. New methods of change analysis attempt to improve robustness, accuracy, and extent of automation. A fully automated method has been developed that achieves high estimation accuracy. METHOD: A fully automated method of longitudinal change analysis is presented here, which automatically segments brain from nonbrain in each image, registers the two brain images while using estimated skull images to constrain scaling and skew, and finally estimates brain surface motion by tracking surface points to subvoxel accuracy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The method described has been shown to be accurate ( approximately 0.2% brain volume change error) and to achieve high robustness (no failures in several hundred analyses over a range of different data sets).
PURPOSE: Quantitative measurement of change in brain size and shape (e.g., to estimate atrophy) is an important current area of research. New methods of change analysis attempt to improve robustness, accuracy, and extent of automation. A fully automated method has been developed that achieves high estimation accuracy. METHOD: A fully automated method of longitudinal change analysis is presented here, which automatically segments brain from nonbrain in each image, registers the two brain images while using estimated skull images to constrain scaling and skew, and finally estimates brain surface motion by tracking surface points to subvoxel accuracy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The method described has been shown to be accurate ( approximately 0.2% brain volume change error) and to achieve high robustness (no failures in several hundred analyses over a range of different data sets).
Authors: Teemu Paavilainen; Timo Kurki; Markus Färkkilä; Oili Salonen; Riitta Parkkola; Laura Airas Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: K Kacar; M A Rocca; M Copetti; S Sala; S Mesaros; T Stosic Opincal; D Caputo; M Absinta; J Drulovic; V S Kostic; G Comi; M Filippi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David J Hawellek; Joerg F Hipp; Christopher M Lewis; Maurizio Corbetta; Andreas K Engel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Lindsay S Nagamatsu; Chun Liang Hsu; B Lynn Beattie; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: H Hyare; S Wroe; D Siddique; T Webb; N C Fox; J Stevens; J Collinge; T Yousry; J S Thornton Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: F Bagnato; J A Butman; S Gupta; M Calabrese; L Pezawas; J M Ohayon; F Tovar-Moll; M Riva; M M Cao; S L Talagala; H F McFarland Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Martin Reuter; M Dylan Tisdall; Abid Qureshi; Randy L Buckner; André J W van der Kouwe; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 6.556