BACKGROUND: Global mean (GM) normalization is one of the most commonly used methods of normalization in PET and SPECT group comparison studies of neurodegenerative disorders. It requires that no between-group GM difference is present, which may be strongly violated in neurodegenerative disorders. Importantly, such GM differences often elude detection due to the large intrinsic variance in absolute values of cerebral blood flow or glucose consumption. Alternative methods of normalization are needed for this type of data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of simulation were performed using CBF images from 49 controls. Two homogeneous groups of 20 subjects were sampled repeatedly. In one group, cortical CBF was artificially decreased moderately (simulation I) or slightly (simulation II). The other group served as controls. Ratio normalization was performed using five reference regions: (1) Global mean; (2) An unbiased VOI; (3) Data-driven region extraction (Andersson); (4-5) Reference cluster methods (Yakushev et al.). Using voxel-based statistics, it was determined how much of the original signal was detected following each type of normalization. RESULTS: For both simulations, global mean normalization performed poorly, with only a few percent of the original signal recovered. Global mean normalization moreover created artificial increases. In contrast, the data-driven reference cluster method detected 65-95% of the original signal. CONCLUSION: In the present simulation, the reference cluster method was superior to GM normalization. We conclude that the reference cluster method will likely yield more accurate results in the study of patients with early to moderate stage neurodegenerative disorders.
BACKGROUND: Global mean (GM) normalization is one of the most commonly used methods of normalization in PET and SPECT group comparison studies of neurodegenerative disorders. It requires that no between-group GM difference is present, which may be strongly violated in neurodegenerative disorders. Importantly, such GM differences often elude detection due to the large intrinsic variance in absolute values of cerebral blood flow or glucose consumption. Alternative methods of normalization are needed for this type of data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of simulation were performed using CBF images from 49 controls. Two homogeneous groups of 20 subjects were sampled repeatedly. In one group, cortical CBF was artificially decreased moderately (simulation I) or slightly (simulation II). The other group served as controls. Ratio normalization was performed using five reference regions: (1) Global mean; (2) An unbiased VOI; (3) Data-driven region extraction (Andersson); (4-5) Reference cluster methods (Yakushev et al.). Using voxel-based statistics, it was determined how much of the original signal was detected following each type of normalization. RESULTS: For both simulations, global mean normalization performed poorly, with only a few percent of the original signal recovered. Global mean normalization moreover created artificial increases. In contrast, the data-driven reference cluster method detected 65-95% of the original signal. CONCLUSION: In the present simulation, the reference cluster method was superior to GM normalization. We conclude that the reference cluster method will likely yield more accurate results in the study of patients with early to moderate stage neurodegenerative disorders.
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: Na Zou; Gael Chetelat; Mustafa G Baydogan; Jing Li; Florian U Fischer; Dmitry Titov; Juergen Dukart; Andreas Fellgiebel; Mathias Schreckenberger; Igor Yakushev Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Fahmeed Hyder; Peter Herman; Christopher J Bailey; Arne Møller; Ronen Globinsky; Robert K Fulbright; Douglas L Rothman; Albert Gjedde Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Christopher G Schwarz; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Stephen D Weigand; Bradley J Kemp; Anthony J Spychalla; Prashanthi Vemuri; Ronald C Petersen; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kewei Chen; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Jessica B S Langbaum; Adam S Fleisher; Cole Reschke; Wendy Lee; Xiaofen Liu; Gene E Alexander; Dan Bandy; Richard J Caselli; Eric M Reiman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-02-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Katherine R Gray; Robin Wolz; Rolf A Heckemann; Paul Aljabar; Alexander Hammers; Daniel Rueckert Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Weiying Dai; Tamara Fong; Richard N Jones; Edward Marcantonio; Eva Schmitt; Sharon K Inouye; David C Alsop Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Auriel A Willette; Barbara B Bendlin; Erika J Starks; Alex C Birdsill; Sterling C Johnson; Bradley T Christian; Ozioma C Okonkwo; Asenath La Rue; Bruce P Hermann; Rebecca L Koscik; Erin M Jonaitis; Mark A Sager; Sanjay Asthana Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 18.302