J A Maldjian1, C T Whitlow. 1. Department of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157, USA. maldjian@wakehealth.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The hippocampus is a widely recognized area of early change in AD, yet voxelwise analyses of FDG-PET activity differences between AD and CN controls have consistently failed to identify hippocampal hypometabolism. In this article, we propose a high-dimensional PET-specific analysis framework to determine whether important hippocampal metabolic FDG-PET activity differences between patients with AD and CN subjects are embedded in the Jacobian information generated during spatial normalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resting FDG-PET data were obtained from 102 CN and 92 participants with AD from the ADNI data base. A PET-study-specific template was constructed using symmetric diffeomorphic registration. Spatially normalized raw FDG maps, Jacobian determinant maps, and modulated maps were generated for all subjects. Statistical parametric mapping and tensor-based morphometry were performed, comparing patients with AD with CN subjects. RESULTS: Whole-brain spatially normalized raw FDG maps demonstrated robust hypometabolism in cingulate gyrus and bilateral parietal areas. No hippocampal differences were present, except on ROI-based analyses with a hippocampal mask. Whole-brain modulated maps demonstrated robust bilateral hippocampal hypometabolism, and some hypometabolism in the posterior cingulate. Tensor-based morphometry demonstrated robust hippocampal differences only. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that hippocampal metabolic differences are embedded in the Jacobian information from the spatial normalization procedure. We introduce a voxelwise PET-specific analysis framework based on the use of a PET-population-specific template, high-dimensional symmetric diffeomorphic normalization, and the use of Jacobian information, which can provide substantially increased statistical power and an order of magnitude decrease in imaging costs.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The hippocampus is a widely recognized area of early change in AD, yet voxelwise analyses of FDG-PET activity differences between AD and CN controls have consistently failed to identify hippocampal hypometabolism. In this article, we propose a high-dimensional PET-specific analysis framework to determine whether important hippocampal metabolic FDG-PET activity differences between patients with AD and CN subjects are embedded in the Jacobian information generated during spatial normalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resting FDG-PET data were obtained from 102 CN and 92 participants with AD from the ADNI data base. A PET-study-specific template was constructed using symmetric diffeomorphic registration. Spatially normalized raw FDG maps, Jacobian determinant maps, and modulated maps were generated for all subjects. Statistical parametric mapping and tensor-based morphometry were performed, comparing patients with AD with CN subjects. RESULTS: Whole-brain spatially normalized raw FDG maps demonstrated robust hypometabolism in cingulate gyrus and bilateral parietal areas. No hippocampal differences were present, except on ROI-based analyses with a hippocampal mask. Whole-brain modulated maps demonstrated robust bilateral hippocampal hypometabolism, and some hypometabolism in the posterior cingulate. Tensor-based morphometry demonstrated robust hippocampal differences only. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that hippocampal metabolic differences are embedded in the Jacobian information from the spatial normalization procedure. We introduce a voxelwise PET-specific analysis framework based on the use of a PET-population-specific template, high-dimensional symmetric diffeomorphic normalization, and the use of Jacobian information, which can provide substantially increased statistical power and an order of magnitude decrease in imaging costs.
Authors: N Tzourio-Mazoyer; B Landeau; D Papathanassiou; F Crivello; O Etard; N Delcroix; B Mazoyer; M Joliot Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: M J de Leon; A Convit; O T Wolf; C Y Tarshish; S DeSanti; H Rusinek; W Tsui; E Kandil; A J Scherer; A Roche; A Imossi; E Thorn; M Bobinski; C Caraos; P Lesbre; D Schlyer; J Poirier; B Reisberg; J Fowler Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-08-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: S De Santi; M J de Leon; H Rusinek; A Convit; C Y Tarshish; A Roche; W H Tsui; E Kandil; M Boppana; K Daisley; G J Wang; D Schlyer; J Fowler Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Ramon Casanova; Ryali Srikanth; Aaron Baer; Paul J Laurienti; Jonathan H Burdette; Satoru Hayasaka; Lynn Flowers; Frank Wood; Joseph A Maldjian Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-10-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Igor Yakushev; Alexander Hammers; Andreas Fellgiebel; Irene Schmidtmann; Armin Scheurich; Hans-Georg Buchholz; Jürgen Peters; Peter Bartenstein; Klaus Lieb; Mathias Schreckenberger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yoon-Hee K Cha; Mayank A Jog; Yoon-Chung Kim; Shruthi Chakrapani; Stephen M Kraman; Danny J J Wang Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Val J Lowe; Patrick J Peller; Stephen D Weigand; Catalina Montoya Quintero; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Prashanthi Vemuri; Matthew L Senjem; Lennon Jordan; Clifford R Jack; David Knopman; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Esther E Bron; Rebecca M E Steketee; Gavin C Houston; Ruth A Oliver; Hakim C Achterberg; Marco Loog; John C van Swieten; Alexander Hammers; Wiro J Niessen; Marion Smits; Stefan Klein Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 5.038