BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Detecting incidence and enlargement of lesions is essential in monitoring the progression of MS. In clinical trials, lesion load is observed by manually segmenting and comparing serial MR images, which is time consuming, costly, and prone to inter- and intraobserver variability. Subtracting images from consecutive time points nulls stable lesions, leaving only new lesion activity. We propose SuBLIME, an automated method for segmenting incident lesion voxels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used logistic regression models incorporating multiple MR imaging sequences and subtraction images from consecutive longitudinal studies to estimate voxel-level probabilities of lesion incidence. We used T1-weighted, T2-weighted, FLAIR, and PD volumes from a total of 110 MR imaging studies from 10 subjects. RESULTS: To assess the performance of the model, we assigned 5 subjects to a training set and the remaining 5 to a validation set. With SuBLIME, lesion incidence is detected and delineated in the validation set with an AUC of 99% (95% CI [97%, 100%]) at the voxel level. CONCLUSIONS: This fully automated and computationally fast method allows sensitive and specific detection of lesion incidence that can be applied to large collections of images. Using the explicit form of the statistical model, SuBLIME can easily be adapted to cases when more or fewer imaging sequences are available.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Detecting incidence and enlargement of lesions is essential in monitoring the progression of MS. In clinical trials, lesion load is observed by manually segmenting and comparing serial MR images, which is time consuming, costly, and prone to inter- and intraobserver variability. Subtracting images from consecutive time points nulls stable lesions, leaving only new lesion activity. We propose SuBLIME, an automated method for segmenting incident lesion voxels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used logistic regression models incorporating multiple MR imaging sequences and subtraction images from consecutive longitudinal studies to estimate voxel-level probabilities of lesion incidence. We used T1-weighted, T2-weighted, FLAIR, and PD volumes from a total of 110 MR imaging studies from 10 subjects. RESULTS: To assess the performance of the model, we assigned 5 subjects to a training set and the remaining 5 to a validation set. With SuBLIME, lesion incidence is detected and delineated in the validation set with an AUC of 99% (95% CI [97%, 100%]) at the voxel level. CONCLUSIONS: This fully automated and computationally fast method allows sensitive and specific detection of lesion incidence that can be applied to large collections of images. Using the explicit form of the statistical model, SuBLIME can easily be adapted to cases when more or fewer imaging sequences are available.
Authors: Russell T Shinohara; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Brian S Caffo; María Inés Gaitán; Daniel S Reich Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: J H Simon; D Li; A Traboulsee; P K Coyle; D L Arnold; F Barkhof; J A Frank; R Grossman; D W Paty; E W Radue; J S Wolinsky Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bastiaan Moraal; Mike P Wattjes; Jeroen J G Geurts; Dirk L Knol; Ronald A van Schijndel; Petra J W Pouwels; Hugo Vrenken; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Navid Shiee; Pierre-Louis Bazin; Arzu Ozturk; Daniel S Reich; Peter A Calabresi; Dzung L Pham Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Bastiaan Moraal; Dominik S Meier; Peter A Poppe; Jeroen J G Geurts; Hugo Vrenken; William M A Jonker; Dirk L Knol; Ronald A van Schijndel; Petra J W Pouwels; Christoph Pohl; Lars Bauer; Rupert Sandbrink; Charles R G Guttmann; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Aaron Carass; Snehashis Roy; Amod Jog; Jennifer L Cuzzocreo; Elizabeth Magrath; Adrian Gherman; Julia Button; James Nguyen; Ferran Prados; Carole H Sudre; Manuel Jorge Cardoso; Niamh Cawley; Olga Ciccarelli; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Sébastien Ourselin; Laurence Catanese; Hrishikesh Deshpande; Pierre Maurel; Olivier Commowick; Christian Barillot; Xavier Tomas-Fernandez; Simon K Warfield; Suthirth Vaidya; Abhijith Chunduru; Ramanathan Muthuganapathy; Ganapathy Krishnamurthi; Andrew Jesson; Tal Arbel; Oskar Maier; Heinz Handels; Leonardo O Iheme; Devrim Unay; Saurabh Jain; Diana M Sima; Dirk Smeets; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Bram Platel; Ariel Birenbaum; Hayit Greenspan; Pierre-Louis Bazin; Peter A Calabresi; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Lotta M Ellingsen; Daniel S Reich; Jerry L Prince; Dzung L Pham Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Daniel S Reich; Richard White; Irene Cm Cortese; Luisa Vuolo; Colin D Shea; Tassie L Collins; John Petkau Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Gina-Maria Pomann; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Daniel S Reich; Ana-Maria Staicu; Russell T Shinohara Journal: Stat Med Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: A Galletto Pregliasco; A Collin; A Guéguen; M A Metten; J Aboab; R Deschamps; O Gout; L Duron; J C Sadik; J Savatovsky; A Lecler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Menghan Hu; Matthew K Schindler; Blake E Dewey; Daniel S Reich; Russell T Shinohara; Ani Eloyan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: M Cabezas; J F Corral; A Oliver; Y Díez; M Tintoré; C Auger; X Montalban; X Lladó; D Pareto; À Rovira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 3.825