BACKGROUND: In many retrospective studies and large clinical trials, high-resolution, good-contrast 3DT1 images are unavailable, hampering detailed analysis of brain atrophy. Ventricular enlargement then provides a sensitive indirect measure of ongoing central brain atrophy. Validated automated methods are required that can reliably measure ventricular enlargement and are robust across magnetic resonance (MR) image types. AIM: To validate the automated method VIENA for measuring the percentage ventricular volume change (PVVC) between two scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Accuracy was assessed using four image types, acquired in 15 elderly patients (five with Alzheimer's disease, five with mild cognitive impairment, and five cognitively normal elderly) and 58 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), by comparing PVVC values from VIENA to manual outlining. Precision was assessed from data with three imaging time points per MS patient, by measuring the difference between the direct (one-step) and indirect (two-step) measurement of ventricular volume change between the first and last time points. The stringent concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was used to quantify absolute agreement. RESULTS: CCC of VIENA with manual measurement was 0.84, indicating good absolute agreement. The median absolute difference between two-step and one-step measurement with VIENA was 1.01%, while CCC was 0.98. Neither initial ventricular volume nor ventricular volume change affected performance of the method. DISCUSSION: VIENA has good accuracy and good precision across four image types. VIENA therefore provides a useful fully automated method for measuring ventricular volume change in large datasets. CONCLUSION: VIENA is a robust, accurate, and precise method for measuring ventricular volume change.
BACKGROUND: In many retrospective studies and large clinical trials, high-resolution, good-contrast 3DT1 images are unavailable, hampering detailed analysis of brain atrophy. Ventricular enlargement then provides a sensitive indirect measure of ongoing central brain atrophy. Validated automated methods are required that can reliably measure ventricular enlargement and are robust across magnetic resonance (MR) image types. AIM: To validate the automated method VIENA for measuring the percentage ventricular volume change (PVVC) between two scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Accuracy was assessed using four image types, acquired in 15 elderly patients (five with Alzheimer's disease, five with mild cognitive impairment, and five cognitively normal elderly) and 58 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), by comparing PVVC values from VIENA to manual outlining. Precision was assessed from data with three imaging time points per MS patient, by measuring the difference between the direct (one-step) and indirect (two-step) measurement of ventricular volume change between the first and last time points. The stringent concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was used to quantify absolute agreement. RESULTS: CCC of VIENA with manual measurement was 0.84, indicating good absolute agreement. The median absolute difference between two-step and one-step measurement with VIENA was 1.01%, while CCC was 0.98. Neither initial ventricular volume nor ventricular volume change affected performance of the method. DISCUSSION: VIENA has good accuracy and good precision across four image types. VIENA therefore provides a useful fully automated method for measuring ventricular volume change in large datasets. CONCLUSION: VIENA is a robust, accurate, and precise method for measuring ventricular volume change.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Yongyue Zhang; Mark Jenkinson; Jacqueline Chen; P M Matthews; Antonio Federico; Nicola De Stefano Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jeroen de Bresser; Marileen P Portegies; Alexander Leemans; Geert Jan Biessels; L Jaap Kappelle; Max A Viergever Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 6.556
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: Sean M Nestor; Raul Rupsingh; Michael Borrie; Matthew Smith; Vittorio Accomazzi; Jennie L Wells; Jennifer Fogarty; Robert Bartha Journal: Brain Date: 2008-07-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: D S Knopman; C R Jack; J H Kramer; B F Boeve; R J Caselli; N R Graff-Radford; M F Mendez; B L Miller; N D Mercaldo Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Robert Zivadinov; Nasreen Khan; Jennie Medin; Pia Christoffersen; Jennifer Price; Jonathan R Korn; Ian Bonzani; Michael G Dwyer; Niels Bergsland; Ellen Carl; Diego Silva; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Michael G Dwyer; Diego Silva; Niels Bergsland; Dana Horakova; Deepa Ramasamy; Jaqueline Durfee; Manuela Vaneckova; Eva Havrdova; Robert Zivadinov Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Michael G Dwyer; Jesper Hagemeier; Niels Bergsland; Dana Horakova; Jonathan R Korn; Nasreen Khan; Tomas Uher; Jennie Medin; Diego Silva; Manuela Vaneckova; Eva Kubala Havrdova; Robert Zivadinov Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: I Dekker; A J C Eijlers; V Popescu; L J Balk; H Vrenken; M P Wattjes; B M J Uitdehaag; J Killestein; J J G Geurts; F Barkhof; M M Schoonheim Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Elijah Mak; Li Su; Guy B Williams; Michael J Firbank; Rachael A Lawson; Alison J Yarnall; Gordon W Duncan; Brit Mollenhauer; Adrian M Owen; Tien K Khoo; David J Brooks; James B Rowe; Roger A Barker; David J Burn; John T O'Brien Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Pratik Kashyap; Trey E Shenk; Diana O Svaldi; Roy J Lycke; Taylor A Lee; Gregory G Tamer; Eric A Nauman; Thomas M Talavage Journal: Neurotrauma Rep Date: 2022-01-28