Literature DB >> 23756204

Mapping registration sensitivity in MR mouse brain images.

Matthijs C van Eede1, Jan Scholz, M Mallar Chakravarty, R Mark Henkelman, Jason P Lerch.   

Abstract

Nonlinear registration algorithms provide a way to estimate structural (brain) differences based on magnetic resonance images. Their ability to align images of different individuals and across modalities has been well-researched, but the bounds of their sensitivity with respect to the recovery of salient morphological differences between groups are unclear. Here we develop a novel approach to simulate deformations on MR brain images to evaluate the ability of two registration algorithms to extract structural differences corresponding to biologically plausible atrophy and expansion. We show that at a neuroanatomical level registration accuracy is influenced by the size and compactness of structures, but do so differently depending on how much change is simulated. The size of structures has a small influence on the recovered accuracy. There is a trend for larger structures to be recovered more accurately, which becomes only significant as the amount of simulated change is large. More compact structures can be recovered more accurately regardless of the amount of simulated change. Both tested algorithms underestimate the full extent of the simulated atrophy and expansion. Finally we show that when multiple comparisons are corrected for at a voxelwise level, a very low rate of false positives is obtained. More interesting is that true positive rates average around 40%, indicating that the simulated changes are not fully recovered. Simulation experiments were run using two fundamentally different registration algorithms and we identified the same results, suggesting that our findings are generalizable across different classes of nonlinear registration algorithms.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atrophy simulation; Deformation based morphometry; Evaluation; MRI; Mouse brain; Neuroanatomy

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23756204     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  18 in total

1.  A simple rapid process for semi-automated brain extraction from magnetic resonance images of the whole mouse head.

Authors:  Adam Delora; Aaron Gonzales; Christopher S Medina; Adam Mitchell; Abdul Faheem Mohed; Russell E Jacobs; Elaine L Bearer
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 2.390

2.  Automated pipeline for anatomical phenotyping of mouse embryos using micro-CT.

Authors:  Michael D Wong; Yoshiro Maezawa; Jason P Lerch; R Mark Henkelman
Journal:  Development       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 6.868

3.  4D MEMRI atlas of neonatal FVB/N mouse brain development.

Authors:  Kamila U Szulc; Jason P Lerch; Brian J Nieman; Benjamin B Bartelle; Miriam Friedel; Giselle A Suero-Abreu; Charles Watson; Alexandra L Joyner; Daniel H Turnbull
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  The effect of automated landmark identification on morphometric analyses.

Authors:  Christopher J Percival; Jay Devine; Benjamin C Darwin; Wei Liu; Matthijs van Eede; R Mark Henkelman; Benedikt Hallgrimsson
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 2.610

5.  Hippocampal to basal forebrain transport of Mn2+ is impaired by deletion of KLC1, a subunit of the conventional kinesin microtubule-based motor.

Authors:  Christopher S Medina; Octavian Biris; Tomas L Falzone; Xiaowei Zhang; Amber J Zimmerman; Elaine L Bearer
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Spatial gene expression analysis of neuroanatomical differences in mouse models.

Authors:  Darren J Fernandes; Jacob Ellegood; Rand Askalan; Randy D Blakely; Emanuel Dicicco-Bloom; Sean E Egan; Lucy R Osborne; Craig M Powell; Armin Raznahan; Diane M Robins; Michael W Salter; Ameet S Sengar; Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele; R M Henkelman; Jason P Lerch
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Clustering autism: using neuroanatomical differences in 26 mouse models to gain insight into the heterogeneity.

Authors:  J Ellegood; E Anagnostou; B A Babineau; J N Crawley; L Lin; M Genestine; E DiCicco-Bloom; J K Y Lai; J A Foster; O Peñagarikano; D H Geschwind; L K Pacey; D R Hampson; C L Laliberté; A A Mills; E Tam; L R Osborne; M Kouser; F Espinosa-Becerra; Z Xuan; C M Powell; A Raznahan; D M Robins; N Nakai; J Nakatani; T Takumi; M C van Eede; T M Kerr; C Muller; R D Blakely; J Veenstra-VanderWeele; R M Henkelman; J P Lerch
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 15.992

8.  Within-subject test-retest reliability of the atlas-based cortical volume measurement in the rat brain: A voxel-based morphometry study.

Authors:  Bin Jing; Bo Liu; Hui Li; Jianfeng Lei; Zhanjing Wang; Yutao Yang; Phillip Zhe Sun; Bing Xue; Hesheng Liu; Zhi-Qing David Xu
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 2.390

9.  Pydpiper: a flexible toolkit for constructing novel registration pipelines.

Authors:  Miriam Friedel; Matthijs C van Eede; Jon Pipitone; M Mallar Chakravarty; Jason P Lerch
Journal:  Front Neuroinform       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 4.081

10.  Automatic structural parcellation of mouse brain MRI using multi-atlas label fusion.

Authors:  Da Ma; Manuel J Cardoso; Marc Modat; Nick Powell; Jack Wells; Holly Holmes; Frances Wiseman; Victor Tybulewicz; Elizabeth Fisher; Mark F Lythgoe; Sébastien Ourselin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.