BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: VBM has been widely used to study GM atrophy in MS. MS lesions lead to segmentation and registration errors that may affect the reliability of VBM results. Improved segmentation and registration have been demonstrated by WM LI before segmentation. DARTEL appears to improve registration versus the USM. Our aim was to compare the performance of VBM-DARTEL versus VBM-USM and the effect of LI in the regional analysis of GM atrophy in MS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3T T1 MR imaging scans were acquired from 26 patients with RRMS and 28 age-matched NC. LI replaced WM lesions with normal-appearing WM intensities before image segmentation. VBM analysis was performed in SPM8 by using DARTEL and USM with and without LI, allowing the comparison of 4 VBM methods (DARTEL + LI, DARTEL - LI, USM + LI, and USM - LI). Accuracy of VBM was assessed by using NMI, CC, and a simulation analysis. RESULTS: Overall, DARTEL + LI yielded the most accurate GM maps among the 4 methods (highest NMI and CC, P < .001). DARTEL + LI showed significant GM loss in the bilateral thalami and caudate nuclei in patients with RRMS versus NC. The other 3 methods overestimated the number of regions of GM loss in RRMS versus NC. LI improved the accuracy of both VBM methods. Simulated data suggested the accuracy of the results provided from patient MR imaging analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a pipeline that shows promise in limiting segmentation and registration errors in VBM analysis in MS.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: VBM has been widely used to study GM atrophy in MS. MS lesions lead to segmentation and registration errors that may affect the reliability of VBM results. Improved segmentation and registration have been demonstrated by WM LI before segmentation. DARTEL appears to improve registration versus the USM. Our aim was to compare the performance of VBM-DARTEL versus VBM-USM and the effect of LI in the regional analysis of GM atrophy in MS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3T T1 MR imaging scans were acquired from 26 patients with RRMS and 28 age-matched NC. LI replaced WM lesions with normal-appearing WM intensities before image segmentation. VBM analysis was performed in SPM8 by using DARTEL and USM with and without LI, allowing the comparison of 4 VBM methods (DARTEL + LI, DARTEL - LI, USM + LI, and USM - LI). Accuracy of VBM was assessed by using NMI, CC, and a simulation analysis. RESULTS: Overall, DARTEL + LI yielded the most accurate GM maps among the 4 methods (highest NMI and CC, P < .001). DARTEL + LI showed significant GM loss in the bilateral thalami and caudate nuclei in patients with RRMS versus NC. The other 3 methods overestimated the number of regions of GM loss in RRMS versus NC. LI improved the accuracy of both VBM methods. Simulated data suggested the accuracy of the results provided from patient MR imaging analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a pipeline that shows promise in limiting segmentation and registration errors in VBM analysis in MS.
Authors: R Takahashi; K Ishii; N Miyamoto; T Yoshikawa; K Shimada; S Ohkawa; T Kakigi; K Yokoyama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Declan T Chard; Jonathan S Jackson; David H Miller; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Donald G McLaren; Kristopher J Kosmatka; Erik K Kastman; Barbara B Bendlin; Sterling C Johnson Journal: Methods Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Amir M Tahmasebi; Purang Abolmaesumi; Zane Z Zheng; Kevin G Munhall; Ingrid S Johnsrude Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: S M D Henley; G R Ridgway; R I Scahill; S Klöppel; S J Tabrizi; N C Fox; J Kassubek Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Arno Klein; Jesper Andersson; Babak A Ardekani; John Ashburner; Brian Avants; Ming-Chang Chiang; Gary E Christensen; D Louis Collins; James Gee; Pierre Hellier; Joo Hyun Song; Mark Jenkinson; Claude Lepage; Daniel Rueckert; Paul Thompson; Tom Vercauteren; Roger P Woods; J John Mann; Ramin V Parsey Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Koushik A Govindarajan; Sushmita Datta; Khader M Hasan; Sangbum Choi; Mohammad H Rahbar; Stacey S Cofield; Gary R Cutter; Fred D Lublin; Jerry S Wolinsky; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Anastasia K Zikou; Maria Kosmidou; Loukas G Astrakas; Loukia C Tzarouchi; Epameinondas Tsianos; Maria I Argyropoulou Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Shahrukh Mallik; Nils Muhlert; Rebecca S Samson; Varun Sethi; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; David H Miller; Declan T Chard Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 6.312