OBJECTIVE: We compared manual infarct definition, which is time-consuming and open to bias, with an automated abnormal tissue detection method in measuring corticospinal tract-infarct overlap volumes in chronic stroke patients to help predict motor outcome. METHODS: Using diffusion tensor imaging and probabilistic tractography, 4 corticospinal tracts from the primary motor cortex, dorsal and ventral premotor cortices, and supplementary motor area to the ipsilateral lower pons were reconstructed in 23 healthy controls. Tract-infarct overlap volume of each of the 4 corticospinal tracts was determined by overlapping the patients' lesions onto the control tract templates, using both manually and automatically defined infarcts in 51 patients. Correlations with upper limb motor impairment were assessed and both methods were directly compared using intraclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: Greater impairment was seen in patients with greater corticospinal tract-infarct overlap with either method (rmanual range = 0.32-0.46; rautomated range = 0.42-0.57). Consistency between manual and automated methods was good to excellent for all 4 corticospinal tracts (ICC range = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that automated infarct identification performs equally as well as a manual method in quantifying corticospinal tract-infarct overlap following stroke.
OBJECTIVE: We compared manual infarct definition, which is time-consuming and open to bias, with an automated abnormal tissue detection method in measuring corticospinal tract-infarct overlap volumes in chronic strokepatients to help predict motor outcome. METHODS: Using diffusion tensor imaging and probabilistic tractography, 4 corticospinal tracts from the primary motor cortex, dorsal and ventral premotor cortices, and supplementary motor area to the ipsilateral lower pons were reconstructed in 23 healthy controls. Tract-infarct overlap volume of each of the 4 corticospinal tracts was determined by overlapping the patients' lesions onto the control tract templates, using both manually and automatically defined infarcts in 51 patients. Correlations with upper limb motor impairment were assessed and both methods were directly compared using intraclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: Greater impairment was seen in patients with greater corticospinal tract-infarct overlap with either method (rmanual range = 0.32-0.46; rautomated range = 0.42-0.57). Consistency between manual and automated methods was good to excellent for all 4 corticospinal tracts (ICC range = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that automated infarct identification performs equally as well as a manual method in quantifying corticospinal tract-infarct overlap following stroke.
Authors: T E J Behrens; M W Woolrich; M Jenkinson; H Johansen-Berg; R G Nunes; S Clare; P M Matthews; J M Brady; S M Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jeff D Riley; Vu Le; Lucy Der-Yeghiaian; Jill See; Jennifer M Newton; Nick S Ward; Steven C Cramer Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jennifer M Newton; Nick S Ward; Geoffrey J M Parker; Ralf Deichmann; Daniel C Alexander; Karl J Friston; Richard S J Frackowiak Journal: Brain Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Robert Schulz; Chang-Hyun Park; Marie-Hélène Boudrias; Christian Gerloff; Friedhelm C Hummel; Nick S Ward Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Edward A Ashton; Chihiro Takahashi; Michel J Berg; Andrew Goodman; Saara Totterman; Sven Ekholm Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Josep Puig; Gerard Blasco; Gottfried Schlaug; Cathy M Stinear; Pepus Daunis-I-Estadella; Carles Biarnes; Jaume Figueras; Joaquín Serena; Maria Hernández-Pérez; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Mar Castellanos; David S Liebeskind; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Götz Thomalla; Kambiz Nael; Max Wintermark; Salvador Pedraza Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Kelsi K Hirai; Benjamin N Groisser; William A Copen; Aneesh B Singhal; Judith D Schaechter Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: L M Colon-Perez; W Triplett; A Bohsali; M Corti; P T Nguyen; C Patten; T H Mareci; C C Price Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Ming Yang; Ya-ru Yang; Hui-jun Li; Xue-song Lu; Yong-mei Shi; Bin Liu; Hua-jun Chen; Gao-jun Teng; Rong Chen; Edward H Herskovits Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ana Sanjuán; Cathy J Price; Laura Mancini; Goulven Josse; Alice Grogan; Adam K Yamamoto; Sharon Geva; Alex P Leff; Tarek A Yousry; Mohamed L Seghier Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Timothy K Lam; Malcolm A Binns; Kie Honjo; Deirdre R Dawson; Bernhard Ross; Donald T Stuss; Sandra E Black; J Jean Chen; Takako Fujioka; Joyce L Chen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: David J Reinkensmeyer; Etienne Burdet; Maura Casadio; John W Krakauer; Gert Kwakkel; Catherine E Lang; Stephan P Swinnen; Nick S Ward; Nicolas Schweighofer Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 5.208