BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: VBM, DBM, and cortical thickness measurement techniques are commonly used automated methods to detect structural brain changes based on MR imaging. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the pathology detected by the 3 methods and to provide guidance as to which method to choose for specific research questions. This goal was accomplished by 1) identifying structural abnormalities associated with TLE with (TLE-mts) and without (TLE-no) hippocampal sclerosis, which are known to be associated with different types of brain atrophy, by using these 3 methods; and 2) determining the aspect of the disease pathology identified by each method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted MR images were acquired for 15 TLE-mts patients, 14 TLE-no patients, and 33 controls on a high-field 4T scanner. Optimized VBM was carried out by using SPM software, DBM was performed by using a fluid-flow registration algorithm, and cortical thickness was analyzed by using FS-CT. RESULTS: In TLE-mts, the most pronounced volume losses were identified in the ipsilateral hippocampus and mesial temporal region, bilateral thalamus, and cerebellum, by using SPM-VBM and DBM. In TLE-no, the most widespread changes were cortical and identified by using FS-CT, affecting the bilateral temporal lobes, insula, and frontal and occipital lobes. DBM revealed 2 clusters of reduced volume complementing FS-CT analysis. SPM-VBM did not show any significant volume losses in TLE-no. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the 3 methods detect different aspects of brain atrophy and that the choice of the method should be guided by the suspected pathology of the disease.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: VBM, DBM, and cortical thickness measurement techniques are commonly used automated methods to detect structural brain changes based on MR imaging. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the pathology detected by the 3 methods and to provide guidance as to which method to choose for specific research questions. This goal was accomplished by 1) identifying structural abnormalities associated with TLE with (TLE-mts) and without (TLE-no) hippocampal sclerosis, which are known to be associated with different types of brain atrophy, by using these 3 methods; and 2) determining the aspect of the disease pathology identified by each method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted MR images were acquired for 15 TLE-mtspatients, 14 TLE-nopatients, and 33 controls on a high-field 4T scanner. Optimized VBM was carried out by using SPM software, DBM was performed by using a fluid-flow registration algorithm, and cortical thickness was analyzed by using FS-CT. RESULTS: In TLE-mts, the most pronounced volume losses were identified in the ipsilateral hippocampus and mesial temporal region, bilateral thalamus, and cerebellum, by using SPM-VBM and DBM. In TLE-no, the most widespread changes were cortical and identified by using FS-CT, affecting the bilateral temporal lobes, insula, and frontal and occipital lobes. DBM revealed 2 clusters of reduced volume complementing FS-CT analysis. SPM-VBM did not show any significant volume losses in TLE-no. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the 3 methods detect different aspects of brain atrophy and that the choice of the method should be guided by the suspected pathology of the disease.
Authors: Josephine Barnes; Gerard R Ridgway; Jonathan Bartlett; Susie M D Henley; Manja Lehmann; Nicola Hobbs; Matthew J Clarkson; David G MacManus; Sebastien Ourselin; Nick C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Susanne G Mueller; Kenneth D Laxer; Jerome Barakos; Ian Cheong; Daniel Finlay; Paul Garcia; Valerie Cardenas-Nicolson; Michael W Weiner Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Sofia H Eriksson; Maria Thom; Mark R Symms; Niels K Focke; Lillian Martinian; Sanjay M Sisodiya; John S Duncan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Katarzyna Jednoróg; Artur Marchewka; Irene Altarelli; Ana Karla Monzalvo Lopez; Muna van Ermingen-Marbach; Marion Grande; Anna Grabowska; Stefan Heim; Franck Ramus Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Cathy Scanlon; Susanne G Mueller; Ian Cheong; Miriam Hartig; Michael W Weiner; Kenneth D Laxer Journal: J Neurol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Manar Ibdali; Marios Hadjivassiliou; Richard A Grünewald; Priya D Shanmugarajah Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yashar Zeighami; Miguel Ulla; Yasser Iturria-Medina; Mahsa Dadar; Yu Zhang; Kevin Michel-Herve Larcher; Vladimir Fonov; Alan C Evans; D Louis Collins; Alain Dagher Journal: Elife Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Darren S Kadis; Debra Goshulak; Aravind Namasivayam; Margit Pukonen; Robert Kroll; Luc F De Nil; Elizabeth W Pang; Jason P Lerch Journal: Brain Topogr Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 3.020