Literature DB >> 16139526

Impact of acquisition protocols and processing streams on tissue segmentation of T1 weighted MR images.

Kristi A Clark1, Roger P Woods, David A Rottenberg, Arthur W Toga, John C Mazziotta.   

Abstract

The segmentation of T1-weighted images into gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a fundamental processing step in neuroimaging, the results of which affect many other structural imaging analyses. Variability in the segmentation process can decrease the power of a study to detect anatomical differences, and minimizing such variability can lead to more robust results. This paper outlines a straightforward strategy that can be used (1) to select more optimal data acquisition and processing protocols and (2) to quantify the impact of such optimization. Using this approach with multiple scans of a single subject, we found that the choice of a segmentation algorithm had the largest impact on variability, while the choice of a pulse sequence had the second largest impact. The data indicate that the classification of GM is the most variable, and that the optimal protocol may differ across tissue types. Therefore, the intended use of segmentation data should play a role in optimization. Examples are provided to demonstrate that the minimization of variability is not sufficient for optimization; the overall accuracy of the approach must also be considered. Simple volumetric computations are included to illustrate the potential gain of optimization; these results show that volume estimates from optimal pathways were on average three times less variable than estimates from suboptimal pathways. Therefore, the simple strategy illustrated here can be applied to many studies to optimize tissue segmentation, which should lead to a net increase in the power of structural neuroimaging studies.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16139526     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  26 in total

Review 1.  Computational analysis of cerebral cortex.

Authors:  Hidemasa Takao; Osamu Abe; Kuni Ohtomo
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Mapping reliability in multicenter MRI: voxel-based morphometry and cortical thickness.

Authors:  Hugo G Schnack; Neeltje E M van Haren; Rachel M Brouwer; G Caroline M van Baal; Marco Picchioni; Matthias Weisbrod; Heinrich Sauer; Tyrone D Cannon; Matti Huttunen; Claude Lepage; D Louis Collins; Alan Evans; Robin M Murray; René S Kahn; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Age-related changes in prefrontal white matter volume across adolescence.

Authors:  Bonnie J Nagel; Krista Lisdahl Medina; June Yoshii; Alecia D Schweinsburg; Ida Moadab; Susan F Tapert
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2006-09-18       Impact factor: 1.837

4.  Evaluation of automated brain MR image segmentation and volumetry methods.

Authors:  Frederick Klauschen; Aaron Goldman; Vincent Barra; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Arvid Lundervold
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Aerobic fitness relates to learning on a virtual Morris Water Task and hippocampal volume in adolescents.

Authors:  Megan M Herting; Bonnie J Nagel
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Longitudinal gray matter changes in multiple sclerosis--differential scanner and overall disease-related effects.

Authors:  Kerstin Bendfeldt; Louis Hofstetter; Pascal Kuster; Stefan Traud; Nicole Mueller-Lenke; Yvonne Naegelin; Ludwig Kappos; Achim Gass; Thomas E Nichols; Frederik Barkhof; Hugo Vrenken; Stefan D Roosendaal; Jeroen J G Geurts; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Stefan J Borgwardt
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  FUZZY C-MEANS WITH VARIABLE COMPACTNESS.

Authors:  Snehashis Roy; Harsh Agarwal; Aaron Carass; Ying Bai; Dzung L Pham; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2008

Review 8.  Automated methods for hippocampus segmentation: the evolution and a review of the state of the art.

Authors:  Vanderson Dill; Alexandre Rosa Franco; Márcio Sarroglia Pinho
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2015-04

9.  PATCH BASED INTENSITY NORMALIZATION OF BRAIN MR IMAGES.

Authors:  Snehashis Roy; Aaron Carass; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2013-12-31

10.  A robust method to estimate the intracranial volume across MRI field strengths (1.5T and 3T).

Authors:  Shiva Keihaninejad; Rolf A Heckemann; Gianlorenzo Fagiolo; Mark R Symms; Joseph V Hajnal; Alexander Hammers
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.