O Lindberg1, A Manzouri, E Westman, L-O Wahlund. 1. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. olof.lindberg@ki.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Volumetric measurements on structural MR images are an established method to investigate pathology-related volume changes in cortex. Manual volumetric methods have sometimes been referred to as the reference standard for quality control of automatic volumetric methods. While some automatic methods, like VBM, may rely on a template, manual methods use sulci as indirect landmarks for the subdivision of cortex. The purpose of this study was to compare volumetric data generated by MM and VBM on 4 multimodal regions in the frontal lobe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 4 multimodal frontocortical regions by MM and VBM in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer disease and controls. RESULTS: MM and VBM results were highly correlated for dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and hippocampus, but not for the dorsal and rostral anterior cingulate. VBM results were more consistent with results from previous studies on cingulate in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Our results may potentially be explained by 2 factors. First, the volume of small cortical regions may be more affected by anatomic variability than large regions in the MM. Second, it has been shown that the location of multimodal cytoarchitectonic areas, such as the cingulate cortex, may be difficult to predict by the appearance of sulci and gyri. CONCLUSIONS: While both VBM and the MM may do equally poorly in predicting cytoarchitecture, the MM may add additional unrelated variance caused by anatomic variability. Thus, paradoxically, the higher anatomic precision of the MM may potentially cause a weaker relation to cytoarchitecture.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Volumetric measurements on structural MR images are an established method to investigate pathology-related volume changes in cortex. Manual volumetric methods have sometimes been referred to as the reference standard for quality control of automatic volumetric methods. While some automatic methods, like VBM, may rely on a template, manual methods use sulci as indirect landmarks for the subdivision of cortex. The purpose of this study was to compare volumetric data generated by MM and VBM on 4 multimodal regions in the frontal lobe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 4 multimodal frontocortical regions by MM and VBM in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer disease and controls. RESULTS: MM and VBM results were highly correlated for dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and hippocampus, but not for the dorsal and rostral anterior cingulate. VBM results were more consistent with results from previous studies on cingulate in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Our results may potentially be explained by 2 factors. First, the volume of small cortical regions may be more affected by anatomic variability than large regions in the MM. Second, it has been shown that the location of multimodal cytoarchitectonic areas, such as the cingulate cortex, may be difficult to predict by the appearance of sulci and gyri. CONCLUSIONS: While both VBM and the MM may do equally poorly in predicting cytoarchitecture, the MM may add additional unrelated variance caused by anatomic variability. Thus, paradoxically, the higher anatomic precision of the MM may potentially cause a weaker relation to cytoarchitecture.
Authors: Danielle J Tisserand; Jens C Pruessner; Ernesto J Sanz Arigita; Martin P J van Boxtel; Alan C Evans; Jelle Jolles; Harry B M Uylings Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nikolai V Malykhin; Thomas P Bouchard; Catherine J Ogilvie; Nicholas J Coupland; Peter Seres; Richard Camicioli Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: William W Seeley; Danielle A Carlin; John M Allman; Marcelo N Macedo; Clarissa Bush; Bruce L Miller; Stephen J Dearmond Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Kristine B Walhovd; Lars T Westlye; Inge Amlien; Thomas Espeseth; Ivar Reinvang; Naftali Raz; Ingrid Agartz; David H Salat; Doug N Greve; Bruce Fischl; Anders M Dale; Anders M Fjell Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Bruce Fischl; Niranjini Rajendran; Evelina Busa; Jean Augustinack; Oliver Hinds; B T Thomas Yeo; Hartmut Mohlberg; Katrin Amunts; Karl Zilles Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2007-12-12 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Simon R Cox; Tahlia I McKenzie; Benjamin S Aribisala; Natalie A Royle; Sarah E MacPherson; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Mark E Bastin; Joanna M Wardlaw; Ian J Deary; Karen J Ferguson Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Alexander Frizell Santillo; Johanna Mårtensson; Olof Lindberg; Markus Nilsson; Amir Manzouri; Maria Landqvist Waldö; Danielle van Westen; Lars-Olof Wahlund; Jimmy Lätt; Christer Nilsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.240