BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: WM lesion segmentation is often performed with the use of subjective rating scales because manual methods are laborious and tedious; however, automated methods are now available. We compared the performance of total lesion volume grading computed by use of an automated WM lesion segmentation algorithm with that of subjective rating scales and expert manual segmentation in a cohort of subjects with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Structural T1 and FLAIR MR imaging data from 50 subjects with diabetes (age, 67.7 ± 7.2 years) and 50 nondiabetic sibling pairs (age, 67.5 ± 9.4 years) were evaluated in an institutional review board-approved study. WM lesion segmentation maps and total lesion volume were generated for each subject by means of the Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM8) Lesion Segmentation Toolbox. Subjective WM lesion grade was determined by means of a 0-9 rating scale by 2 readers. Ground-truth total lesion volume was determined by means of manual segmentation by experienced readers. Correlation analyses compared manual segmentation total lesion volume with automated and subjective evaluation methods. RESULTS: Correlation between average lesion segmentation and ground-truth total lesion volume was 0.84. Maximum correlation between the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox and ground-truth total lesion volume (ρ = 0.87) occurred at the segmentation threshold of k = 0.25, whereas maximum correlation between subjective lesion segmentation and the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (ρ = 0.73) occurred at k = 0.15. The difference between the 2 correlation estimates with ground-truth was not statistically significant. The lower segmentation threshold (0.15 versus 0.25) suggests that subjective raters overestimate WM lesion burden. CONCLUSIONS: We validate the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox for determining total lesion volume in diabetes-enriched populations and compare it with a common subjective WM lesion rating scale. The Lesion Segmentation Toolbox is a readily available substitute for subjective WM lesion scoring in studies of diabetes and other populations with changes of leukoaraiosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: WM lesion segmentation is often performed with the use of subjective rating scales because manual methods are laborious and tedious; however, automated methods are now available. We compared the performance of total lesion volume grading computed by use of an automated WM lesion segmentation algorithm with that of subjective rating scales and expert manual segmentation in a cohort of subjects with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Structural T1 and FLAIR MR imaging data from 50 subjects with diabetes (age, 67.7 ± 7.2 years) and 50 nondiabetic sibling pairs (age, 67.5 ± 9.4 years) were evaluated in an institutional review board-approved study. WM lesion segmentation maps and total lesion volume were generated for each subject by means of the Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM8) Lesion Segmentation Toolbox. Subjective WM lesion grade was determined by means of a 0-9 rating scale by 2 readers. Ground-truth total lesion volume was determined by means of manual segmentation by experienced readers. Correlation analyses compared manual segmentation total lesion volume with automated and subjective evaluation methods. RESULTS: Correlation between average lesion segmentation and ground-truth total lesion volume was 0.84. Maximum correlation between the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox and ground-truth total lesion volume (ρ = 0.87) occurred at the segmentation threshold of k = 0.25, whereas maximum correlation between subjective lesion segmentation and the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (ρ = 0.73) occurred at k = 0.15. The difference between the 2 correlation estimates with ground-truth was not statistically significant. The lower segmentation threshold (0.15 versus 0.25) suggests that subjective raters overestimate WM lesion burden. CONCLUSIONS: We validate the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox for determining total lesion volume in diabetes-enriched populations and compare it with a common subjective WM lesion rating scale. The Lesion Segmentation Toolbox is a readily available substitute for subjective WM lesion scoring in studies of diabetes and other populations with changes of leukoaraiosis.
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca; Frederik Barkhof; Wolfgang Brück; Jacqueline T Chen; Giancarlo Comi; Gabriele DeLuca; Nicola De Stefano; Bradley J Erickson; Nikos Evangelou; Franz Fazekas; Jeroen J G Geurts; Claudia Lucchinetti; David H Miller; Daniel Pelletier; Bogdan F Gh Popescu; Hans Lassmann Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: A M Tiehuis; K L Vincken; W P T M Mali; L J Kappelle; P Anbeek; A Algra; G J Biessels Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2007-11-22 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Iris L H Knottnerus; Hugo Ten Cate; Jan Lodder; Fons Kessels; Robert J van Oostenbrugge Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Donald W Bowden; Amanda J Cox; Barry I Freedman; Christina E Hugenschimdt; Lynne E Wagenknecht; David Herrington; Subhashish Agarwal; Thomas C Register; Joseph A Maldjian; Maggie C-Y Ng; Fang-Chi Hsu; Carl D Langefeld; Jeff D Williamson; J Jeffrey Carr Journal: Rev Diabet Stud Date: 2010-11-10
Authors: Jeroen de Bresser; Audrey M Tiehuis; Esther van den Berg; Yael D Reijmer; Cynthia Jongen; L Jaap Kappelle; Willem P Mali; Max A Viergever; Geert Jan Biessels Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stéphanie Debette; Alexa Beiser; Charles DeCarli; Rhoda Au; Jayandra J Himali; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Jose R Romero; Carlos S Kase; Philip A Wolf; Sudha Seshadri Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Laura M Raffield; Gretchen A Brenes; Amanda J Cox; Barry I Freedman; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Fang-Chi Hsu; Jianzhao Xu; Benjamin C Wagner; Jeff D Williamson; Joseph A Maldjian; Donald W Bowden Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Mariana Murea; Fang-Chi Hsu; Amanda J Cox; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Jianzhao Xu; Jeremy N Adams; Laura M Raffield; Christopher T Whitlow; Joseph A Maldjian; Donald W Bowden; Barry I Freedman Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Fang-Chi Hsu; Kaycee M Sink; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Jeff D Williamson; Timothy M Hughes; Nicholette D Palmer; Jianzhao Xu; S Carrie Smith; Benjamin C Wagner; Christopher T Whitlow; Donald W Bowden; Joseph A Maldjian; Jasmin Divers; Barry I Freedman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Fang-Chi Hsu; Laura M Raffield; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Amanda Cox; Jianzhao Xu; J Jeffery Carr; Barry I Freedman; Joseph A Maldjian; Jeff D Williamson; Donald W Bowden Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Nicholette D Palmer Allred; Laura M Raffield; Joycelyn C Hardy; Fang-Chi Hsu; Jasmin Divers; Jianzhao Xu; S Carrie Smith; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Benjamin C Wagner; Christopher T Whitlow; Kaycee M Sink; Joseph A Maldjian; Jeff D Williamson; Donald W Bowden; Barry I Freedman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Laura M Raffield; Amanda J Cox; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Barry I Freedman; Carl D Langefeld; Jeff D Williamson; Fang-Chi Hsu; Joseph A Maldjian; Donald W Bowden Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Barry I Freedman; Crystal A Gadegbeku; R Nick Bryan; Nicholas M Pajewski; Jasmin Divers; Nicholette D Palmer; Pamela J Hicks; Lijun Ma; Michael V Rocco; S Carrie Smith; Jianzhao Xu; Christopher T Whitlow; Benjamin C Wagner; Carl D Langefeld; Amret T Hawfield; Jeffrey T Bates; Alan J Lerner; Dominic S Raj; Mohammad S Sadaghiani; Robert D Toto; Jackson T Wright; Donald W Bowden; Jeff D Williamson; Kaycee M Sink; Joseph A Maldjian Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Jeremy N Adams; Susan E Martelle; Laura M Raffield; Barry I Freedman; Carl D Langefeld; Fang-Chi Hsu; Joseph A Maldjian; Jeff D Williamson; Christina E Hugenschmidt; J Jeffery Carr; Amanda J Cox; Donald W Bowden Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 2.852