L Itti1, L Chang, T Ernst. 1. Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Hedco Neuroscience Building, Room 30A, 3641 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520, USA. itti@pollux.usc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The authors compared the reproducibility of a manual and a semiautomated technique for the quantitation of white-matter lesions in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Volumes of white-matter lesions were determined using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI in 23 AIDS patients with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Manual outlining was compared to an automated method based on region growing and adaptive thresholding. RESULTS: Lesion volumes from the 2 methods correlated well (61 lesions, r = 0.99, P < 10(-4)), although the volumes differed substantially (12.8% +/- 13.7%). Interscan, intrasubject reproducibility was better for the automated than the manual method (2.9% +/- 3.2% vs 12.4% +/- 16.2% volume difference, P = .02). CONCLUSION: The automated algorithm appeared more reproducible, which renders it superior to the manual method for longitudinal studies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The authors compared the reproducibility of a manual and a semiautomated technique for the quantitation of white-matter lesions in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Volumes of white-matter lesions were determined using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI in 23 AIDSpatients with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Manual outlining was compared to an automated method based on region growing and adaptive thresholding. RESULTS: Lesion volumes from the 2 methods correlated well (61 lesions, r = 0.99, P < 10(-4)), although the volumes differed substantially (12.8% +/- 13.7%). Interscan, intrasubject reproducibility was better for the automated than the manual method (2.9% +/- 3.2% vs 12.4% +/- 16.2% volume difference, P = .02). CONCLUSION: The automated algorithm appeared more reproducible, which renders it superior to the manual method for longitudinal studies.
Authors: Andrei Irimia; Micah C Chambers; Jeffry R Alger; Maria Filippou; Marcel W Prastawa; Bo Wang; David A Hovda; Guido Gerig; Arthur W Toga; Ron Kikinis; Paul M Vespa; John D Van Horn Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Vivek Prabhakaran; Veena A Nair; Benjamin P Austin; Christian La; Thomas A Gallagher; Yijing Wu; Donald G McLaren; Guofan Xu; Patrick Turski; Howard Rowley Journal: Neuroimaging Clin N Am Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: W Royal; B Dupont; D McGuire; L Chang; K Goodkin; T Ernst; M J Post; D Fish; G Pailloux; H Poncelet; M Concha; L Apuzzo; E Singer Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: Maria Eugenia Caligiuri; Paolo Perrotta; Antonio Augimeri; Federico Rocca; Aldo Quattrone; Andrea Cherubini Journal: Neuroinformatics Date: 2015-07
Authors: R Guerrero; C Qin; O Oktay; C Bowles; L Chen; R Joules; R Wolz; M C Valdés-Hernández; D A Dickie; J Wardlaw; D Rueckert Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 4.881