BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brain volume loss is currently a MR imaging marker of neurodegeneration in MS. Available quantification algorithms perform either direct (segmentation-based techniques) or indirect (registration-based techniques) measurements. Because there is no reference standard technique, the assessment of their accuracy and reliability remains a difficult goal. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to assess the robustness of 7 different postprocessing algorithms applied to images acquired from different MR imaging systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients with MS were followed longitudinally over 1 year (3 time points) on two 1.5T MR imaging systems. Brain volume change measures were assessed using 7 segmentation algorithms: a segmentation-classification algorithm, FreeSurfer, BBSI, KN-BSI, SIENA, SIENAX, and JI algorithm. RESULTS: Intersite variability showed that segmentation-based techniques and SIENAX provided large and heterogeneous values of brain volume changes. A Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 1.8%, 0.07%, and 0.79% between the 2 sites, and a wide length agreement interval of 11.66%, 7.92%, and 11.94% for the segmentation-classification algorithm, FreeSurfer, and SIENAX, respectively. In contrast, registration-based algorithms showed better reproducibility, with a low mean difference of 0.45% for BBSI, KN-BSI and JI, and a mean length agreement interval of 1.55%. If SIENA obtained a lower mean difference of 0.12%, its agreement interval of 3.29% was wider. CONCLUSIONS: If brain atrophy estimation remains an open issue, future investigations of the accuracy and reliability of the brain volume quantification algorithms are needed to measure the slow and small brain volume changes occurring in MS.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brain volume loss is currently a MR imaging marker of neurodegeneration in MS. Available quantification algorithms perform either direct (segmentation-based techniques) or indirect (registration-based techniques) measurements. Because there is no reference standard technique, the assessment of their accuracy and reliability remains a difficult goal. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to assess the robustness of 7 different postprocessing algorithms applied to images acquired from different MR imaging systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients with MS were followed longitudinally over 1 year (3 time points) on two 1.5T MR imaging systems. Brain volume change measures were assessed using 7 segmentation algorithms: a segmentation-classification algorithm, FreeSurfer, BBSI, KN-BSI, SIENA, SIENAX, and JI algorithm. RESULTS: Intersite variability showed that segmentation-based techniques and SIENAX provided large and heterogeneous values of brain volume changes. A Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 1.8%, 0.07%, and 0.79% between the 2 sites, and a wide length agreement interval of 11.66%, 7.92%, and 11.94% for the segmentation-classification algorithm, FreeSurfer, and SIENAX, respectively. In contrast, registration-based algorithms showed better reproducibility, with a low mean difference of 0.45% for BBSI, KN-BSI and JI, and a mean length agreement interval of 1.55%. If SIENA obtained a lower mean difference of 0.12%, its agreement interval of 3.29% was wider. CONCLUSIONS: If brain atrophy estimation remains an open issue, future investigations of the accuracy and reliability of the brain volume quantification algorithms are needed to measure the slow and small brain volume changes occurring in MS.
Authors: Xue Hua; Alex D Leow; Neelroop Parikshak; Suh Lee; Ming-Chang Chiang; Arthur W Toga; Clifford R Jack; Michael W Weiner; Paul M Thompson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: J H Simon; L D Jacobs; M K Campion; R A Rudick; D L Cookfair; R M Herndon; J R Richert; A M Salazar; J S Fischer; D E Goodkin; N Simonian; M Lajaunie; D E Miller; K Wende; A Martens-Davidson; R P Kinkel; F E Munschauer; C M Brownscheidle Journal: Neurology Date: 1999-07-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jorge Jovicich; Silvester Czanner; Xiao Han; David Salat; Andre van der Kouwe; Brian Quinn; Jenni Pacheco; Marilyn Albert; Ronald Killiany; Deborah Blacker; Paul Maguire; Diana Rosas; Nikos Makris; Randy Gollub; Anders Dale; Bradford C Dickerson; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Oscar Camara; Julia A Schnabel; Gerard R Ridgway; William R Crum; Abdel Douiri; Rachael I Scahill; Derek L G Hill; Nick C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-05-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Veronica Popescu; Roel Klaver; Adriaan Versteeg; Pieter Voorn; Jos W R Twisk; Frederik Barkhof; Jeroen J G Geurts; Hugo Vrenken Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Nicola De Stefano; Laura Airas; Nikolaos Grigoriadis; Heinrich P Mattle; Jonathan O'Riordan; Celia Oreja-Guevara; Finn Sellebjerg; Bruno Stankoff; Agata Walczak; Heinz Wiendl; Bernd C Kieseier Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: François De Guio; Marco Duering; Franz Fazekas; Frank-Erik De Leeuw; Steven M Greenberg; Leonardo Pantoni; Agnès Aghetti; Eric E Smith; Joanna Wardlaw; Eric Jouvent Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: François De Guio; Eric Jouvent; Geert Jan Biessels; Sandra E Black; Carol Brayne; Christopher Chen; Charlotte Cordonnier; Frank-Eric De Leeuw; Martin Dichgans; Fergus Doubal; Marco Duering; Carole Dufouil; Emrah Duzel; Franz Fazekas; Vladimir Hachinski; M Arfan Ikram; Jennifer Linn; Paul M Matthews; Bernard Mazoyer; Vincent Mok; Bo Norrving; John T O'Brien; Leonardo Pantoni; Stefan Ropele; Perminder Sachdev; Reinhold Schmidt; Sudha Seshadri; Eric E Smith; Luciano A Sposato; Blossom Stephan; Richard H Swartz; Christophe Tzourio; Mark van Buchem; Aad van der Lugt; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Meike W Vernooij; Anand Viswanathan; David Werring; Frank Wollenweber; Joanna M Wardlaw; Hugues Chabriat Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 6.200