PURPOSE: In the human brain, minerals such as iron and calcium accumulate increasingly with age. They typically appear hypointense on T2*-weighted MRI sequences. This study aims to explore the differentiation and association between calcified regions and noncalcified iron deposits on clinical brain MRI in elderly, otherwise healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mineral deposits were segmented on co-registered T1- and T2*-weighted sequences from 100 1.5 Tesla MRI datasets of community-dwelling individuals in their 70s. To differentiate calcified regions from noncalcified iron deposits we developed a method based on their appearance on T1-weighted images, which was validated with a purpose-designed phantom. Joint T1- and T2*-weighted intensity histograms were constructed to measure the similarity between the calcified and noncalcified iron deposits using a Euclidean distance based metric. RESULTS: We found distinct distributions for calcified regions and noncalcified iron deposits in the cumulative joint T1- and T2*-weighted intensity histograms across all subjects (correlations ranging from 0.02 to 0.86; mean = 0.26 ± 0.16; t = 16.93; P < 0.001) consistent with differences in iron and calcium signal in the phantom. The mean volumes of affected tissue per subject for calcified and noncalcified deposits were 236.74 ± 309.70 mm(3) and 283.76 ± 581.51 mm(3); respectively. There was a positive association between the mineral depositions (β = 0.32, P < 0.005), consistent with existing literature reports. CONCLUSION: Calcified mineral deposits and noncalcified iron deposits can be distinguished from each other by signal intensity changes on conventional 1.5T T1-weighted MRI and are significantly associated in brains of elderly, otherwise healthy subjects.
PURPOSE: In the human brain, minerals such as iron and calcium accumulate increasingly with age. They typically appear hypointense on T2*-weighted MRI sequences. This study aims to explore the differentiation and association between calcified regions and noncalcified iron deposits on clinical brain MRI in elderly, otherwise healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mineral deposits were segmented on co-registered T1- and T2*-weighted sequences from 100 1.5 Tesla MRI datasets of community-dwelling individuals in their 70s. To differentiate calcified regions from noncalcified iron deposits we developed a method based on their appearance on T1-weighted images, which was validated with a purpose-designed phantom. Joint T1- and T2*-weighted intensity histograms were constructed to measure the similarity between the calcified and noncalcified iron deposits using a Euclidean distance based metric. RESULTS: We found distinct distributions for calcified regions and noncalcified iron deposits in the cumulative joint T1- and T2*-weighted intensity histograms across all subjects (correlations ranging from 0.02 to 0.86; mean = 0.26 ± 0.16; t = 16.93; P < 0.001) consistent with differences in iron and calcium signal in the phantom. The mean volumes of affected tissue per subject for calcified and noncalcified deposits were 236.74 ± 309.70 mm(3) and 283.76 ± 581.51 mm(3); respectively. There was a positive association between the mineral depositions (β = 0.32, P < 0.005), consistent with existing literature reports. CONCLUSION: Calcified mineral deposits and noncalcified iron deposits can be distinguished from each other by signal intensity changes on conventional 1.5T T1-weighted MRI and are significantly associated in brains of elderly, otherwise healthy subjects.
Authors: Ethan Gore; Brian S Appleby; Mark L Cohen; Suzanne D DeBrosse; James B Leverenz; Bruce L Miller; Sandra L Siedlak; Xiongwei Zhu; Alan J Lerner Journal: Neurocase Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 0.881
Authors: M del C Valdés Hernández; J Allan; A Glatz; J Kyle; J Corley; C E Brett; S Muñoz Maniega; N A Royle; M E Bastin; J M Starr; I J Deary; J M Wardlaw Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Andreas Glatz; Mark E Bastin; Alexander J Kiker; Ian J Deary; Joanna M Wardlaw; Maria C Valdés Hernández Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Stuart Ritchie; Andreas Glatz; Mike Allerhand; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Alan J Gow; Natalie A Royle; Mark E Bastin; John M Starr; Ian J Deary; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2015-09-17
Authors: Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Tessa Case; Francesca M Chappell; Andreas Glatz; Stephen Makin; Fergus Doubal; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Lucia Ballerini; Andreas Glatz; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Alan J Gow; Mark E Bastin; John M Starr; Ian J Deary; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Paul A Armitage; Michael J Thrippleton; Francesca Chappell; Elaine Sandeman; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Kirsten Shuler; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Eric E Smith; Geert Jan Biessels; François De Guio; Frank Erik de Leeuw; Simon Duchesne; Marco Düring; Richard Frayne; M Arfan Ikram; Eric Jouvent; Bradley J MacIntosh; Michael J Thrippleton; Meike W Vernooij; Hieab Adams; Walter H Backes; Lucia Ballerini; Sandra E Black; Christopher Chen; Rod Corriveau; Charles DeCarli; Steven M Greenberg; M Edip Gurol; Michael Ingrisch; Dominic Job; Bonnie Y K Lam; Lenore J Launer; Jennifer Linn; Cheryl R McCreary; Vincent C T Mok; Leonardo Pantoni; G Bruce Pike; Joel Ramirez; Yael D Reijmer; Jose Rafael Romero; Stefan Ropele; Natalia S Rost; Perminder S Sachdev; Christopher J M Scott; Sudha Seshadri; Mukul Sharma; Steven Sourbron; Rebecca M E Steketee; Richard H Swartz; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Matthias van Osch; Sanneke van Rooden; Anand Viswanathan; David Werring; Martin Dichgans; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2019-02-26