Per Borghammer1, Kristjana Yr Jonsdottir2, Paul Cumming2, Karen Ostergaard3, Kim Vang4, Mahmoud Ashkanian2, Manoucher Vafaee2, Peter Iversen5, Albert Gjedde6. 1. PET center, Aarhus University Hospitals, Denmark; Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), Aarhus University, Denmark. Electronic address: per@pet.auh.dk. 2. Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), Aarhus University, Denmark. 3. Department of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospitals, Denmark. 4. PET center, Aarhus University Hospitals, Denmark. 5. PET center, Aarhus University Hospitals, Denmark; Department of Internal Medicine (V), Aarhus University Hospitals, Denmark. 6. PET center, Aarhus University Hospitals, Denmark; Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), Aarhus University, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In positron emission tomography (PET) studies of cerebral blood flow (CBF) and metabolism, the large interindividual variation commonly is minimized by normalization to the global mean prior to statistical analysis. This approach requires that no between-group or between-state differences exist in the normalization region. Given the variability typical of global CBF and the practical limit on sample size, small group differences in global mean easily elude detection, but still bias the comparison, with profound consequences for the physiological interpretation of the results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative [15O]H2O PET recordings of CBF were obtained in 45 healthy subjects (21-81 years) and 14 patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE). With volume-of-interest (VOI) and voxel-based statistics, we conducted regression analyses of CBF as function of age in the healthy group, and compared the HE group to a subset of the controls. We compared absolute CBF values, and CBF normalized to the gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) means. In additional simulation experiments, we manipulated the cortical values of 12 healthy subjects and compared these to unaltered control data. RESULTS: In healthy aging, CBF was shown to be unchanged in WM and central regions. In contrast, with normalization to the GM mean, CBF displayed positive correlation with age in the central regions. Very similar artifactual increases were seen in the HE comparison and also in the simulation experiment. CONCLUSION: Ratio normalization to the global mean readily elevates CBF in unchanged regions when a systematic between-group difference exists in gCBF, also when this difference is below the detection threshold. We suggest that the routine normalization to the global mean in earlier studies resulted in spurious interpretations of perturbed CBF. Normalization to central WM yields less biased results in aging and HE and could potentially serve as a normalization reference region in other disorders as well.
INTRODUCTION: In positron emission tomography (PET) studies of cerebral blood flow (CBF) and metabolism, the large interindividual variation commonly is minimized by normalization to the global mean prior to statistical analysis. This approach requires that no between-group or between-state differences exist in the normalization region. Given the variability typical of global CBF and the practical limit on sample size, small group differences in global mean easily elude detection, but still bias the comparison, with profound consequences for the physiological interpretation of the results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative [15O]H2O PET recordings of CBF were obtained in 45 healthy subjects (21-81 years) and 14 patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE). With volume-of-interest (VOI) and voxel-based statistics, we conducted regression analyses of CBF as function of age in the healthy group, and compared the HE group to a subset of the controls. We compared absolute CBF values, and CBF normalized to the gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) means. In additional simulation experiments, we manipulated the cortical values of 12 healthy subjects and compared these to unaltered control data. RESULTS: In healthy aging, CBF was shown to be unchanged in WM and central regions. In contrast, with normalization to the GM mean, CBF displayed positive correlation with age in the central regions. Very similar artifactual increases were seen in the HE comparison and also in the simulation experiment. CONCLUSION: Ratio normalization to the global mean readily elevates CBF in unchanged regions when a systematic between-group difference exists in gCBF, also when this difference is below the detection threshold. We suggest that the routine normalization to the global mean in earlier studies resulted in spurious interpretations of perturbed CBF. Normalization to central WM yields less biased results in aging and HE and could potentially serve as a normalization reference region in other disorders as well.
Authors: Kewei Chen; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Jessica B S Langbaum; Adam S Fleisher; Cole Reschke; Wendy Lee; Xiaofen Liu; Dan Bandy; Gene E Alexander; Paul M Thompson; Leslie Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Clifford R Jack; Susan M Landau; Norman L Foster; Danielle J Harvey; Michael W Weiner; Robert A Koeppe; William J Jagust; Eric M Reiman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Joel Aanerud; Per Borghammer; M Mallar Chakravarty; Kim Vang; Anders B Rodell; Kristjana Y Jónsdottir; Arne Møller; Mahmoud Ashkanian; Manouchehr S Vafaee; Peter Iversen; Peter Johannsen; Albert Gjedde Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Jerod M Rasmussen; Anita Lakatos; Theo G M van Erp; Frithjof Kruggel; David B Keator; James T Fallon; Fabio Macciardi; Steven G Potkin Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2011-09-19
Authors: Tracy R Melzer; Richard Watts; Michael R MacAskill; John F Pearson; Sina Rüeger; Toni L Pitcher; Leslie Livingston; Charlotte Graham; Ross Keenan; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; David C Alsop; John C Dalrymple-Alford; Tim J Anderson Journal: Brain Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Joel Aanerud; Per Borghammer; Anders Rodell; Kristjana Y Jónsdottir; Albert Gjedde Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200