| Literature DB >> 25610795 |
Arman Eshaghi1, Sadjad Riyahi-Alam2, Roghayyeh Saeedi2, Tina Roostaei3, Arash Nazeri3, Aida Aghsaei2, Rozita Doosti2, Habib Ganjgahi4, Benedetta Bodini5, Ali Shakourirad6, Manijeh Pakravan7, Hossein Ghana'ati7, Kavous Firouznia7, Mojtaba Zarei4, Amir Reza Azimi2, Mohammad Ali Sahraian8.
Abstract
Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) exhibits substantial similarities to multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinical manifestations and imaging results and has long been considered a variant of MS. With the advent of a specific biomarker in NMO, known as anti-aquaporin 4, this assumption has changed; however, the differential diagnosis remains challenging and it is still not clear whether a combination of neuroimaging and clinical data could be used to aid clinical decision-making. Computer-aided diagnosis is a rapidly evolving process that holds great promise to facilitate objective differential diagnoses of disorders that show similar presentations. In this study, we aimed to use a powerful method for multi-modal data fusion, known as a multi-kernel learning and performed automatic diagnosis of subjects. We included 30 patients with NMO, 25 patients with MS and 35 healthy volunteers and performed multi-modal imaging with T1-weighted high resolution scans, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and resting-state functional MRI (fMRI). In addition, subjects underwent clinical examinations and cognitive assessments. We included 18 a priori predictors from neuroimaging, clinical and cognitive measures in the initial model. We used 10-fold cross-validation to learn the importance of each modality, train and finally test the model performance. The mean accuracy in differentiating between MS and NMO was 88%, where visible white matter lesion load, normal appearing white matter (DTI) and functional connectivity had the most important contributions to the final classification. In a multi-class classification problem we distinguished between all of 3 groups (MS, NMO and healthy controls) with an average accuracy of 84%. In this classification, visible white matter lesion load, functional connectivity, and cognitive scores were the 3 most important modalities. Our work provides preliminary evidence that computational tools can be used to help make an objective differential diagnosis of NMO and MS.Entities:
Keywords: Computational diagnosis; Differential diagnosis; Multi-modal imaging; Multiple sclerosis; Neuromyelitis optica
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25610795 PMCID: PMC4297886 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.01.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Measures that were used a priori to construct disease prediction models.
| Measures (predictors) and modalities | Description | Previous evidence in MS | Previous evidence in NMO | Method used for calculation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modality: gray matter | ||||
| Cortical thickness | Average of cortical thickness (in millimeters) from cortical regions in the Desikan-Killiany atlas | Gray matter is affected from the early stages by demyelination, axonal loss and neuronal degeneration | Gray matter is affected to a much lesser extent than in MS. Damage is secondary to astrocyte loss with less demyelination | FreeSurfer software: thickness between white matter surface and pial surface. |
| Deep gray matter (DGM) | Average volumes of the thalamus, pallidum, caudate and globus pallidus (in cubic millimeters, both hemispheres). | DGM nuclei (specifically the thalamus) are affected from the early stages. Damage may be secondary to axonal loss in other regions or primarily due to iron accumulation or demyelination | Nuclei are also affected, possibly to a lesser extent than in MS | Volumetric pipeline of subcortical segmentation in FreeSurfer. |
| Modality: visible WM lesions | ||||
| T2/FLAIR lesion load | Average of visible white matter lesion volume (cubic millimeters). | Visible lesions are the basis for a diagnosis of MS. | A pattern that is distinct from that of MS in the hypothalamus and brain stem, or sometimes a pattern similar to that observed in MS | Jim software and SPM8:FLAIR lesion mask was calculated automatically (see text). Next, it was manually edited while comparing to T2 images. |
| T1 lesion load | Average of hypointense lesion volume (cubic millimeters). | T1 hypointense lesions could be better correlated with disability than T2 lesions | Could be seen in destructive lesion | Jim software: Hypointense lesions were manually marked and segmented by an expert neurologist |
| Modality: DTI | ||||
| Corpus callosum fractional anisotropy (normal-appearing white matter only) | Average of fractional anisotropy (FA) along the corticospinal tract, localized according to the Jülich histological atlas after exclusion of the visible lesion mask ( | A hallmark of MS; decreased white matter integrity is easily detectable in this area | May be affected secondary to non-specific white matter lesions | FSL software: binary mask of the corpus callosum was warped to the subjects' native space; the visible white matter lesion mask was subtracted; and the mean average of FA was calculated. |
| Corticospinal tract FA (normal-appearing white matter only) | Average of FA along the corticospinal tract, localized according to the Jülich histological atlas after exclusion of the visible lesion mask ( | Presents a loss of integrity, which is associated with disability and clinical progression | May present damage secondary to myelitis | FSL software: as described above, except with the corticospinal binary mask (bilateral). |
| Optic radiation (normal-appearing white matter only) | Average of FA along the bilateral optic radiation tract (reference atlas: Jülich histological atlas) after exclusion of the visible lesion mask ( | Damaged in MS, secondary to trans-synaptic degeneration in the optic nerve and Wallerian degeneration due to local lesions | DTI studies have revealed a loss of integrity in patients with NMO with distinct pathogenic processes compared with those of MS | FSL software: as described above. |
| Modality: fMRI | ||||
| Sensorimotor network connectivity | Average of | Presents aberrant connectivity, which may be due to compensatory mechanisms or maladaptive plasticity | Only a handful of studies are available; may show aberrant connectivity | FSL software: independent components analysis (ICA) separates signals into underlying sources. Next, a dual-regression approach was used to extract functional connectivity values ( |
| Default mode network connectivity | Average of | Presents abnormal connectivity even in patients with clinically isolated syndrome and is known to be affected in other neurological or psychiatric disorders | A few studies have shown changes compared to healthy controls | FSL software: the same method used for the sensorimotor network. |
| Visual network | Average of | Visual network supports a “basic” function and failed to show any change in a previous study, it will be used here as a control network | – | Same method used for previous two networks. |
| Upper cervical cord cross-sectional area | Average cross-sectional area from foramen magnum to C2. | Presents volume loss and is associated with disability | Primarily affected during NMO. | Jim software: semiautomatic reconstruction of the spinal cord, followed by calculation of the average cross-sectional area (square millimeters). |
| Modality: clinical scores | ||||
| EDSS | EDSS score, assessed by the neurologist providing care. | Used as an outcome measure in MS clinical trials. | Originally developed for MS, but also applied to NMO. | Neurological examination (ranging from 0–10). |
| 9-Hole peg test | Part of the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC). Tests upper motor disability and cerebellar functions. | Associated with motor performance and cerebellar coordination. | Could be more impaired in NMO due to more devastating attacks. | Average of two trials with dominant and non-dominant hand in seconds. |
| 25-Foot walk test | Part of the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC). | Associated with motor performance and cerebellar coordination. | Could be impaired in NMO secondary to more severe attacks. | Average of two trials in which patients walk a 25-foot distance as quickly as possible, measured in seconds. |
| Low-contrast (2.5%) visual test | Sloan low-contrast letter acuity is a standardized measure suggested in addition to the MSFC. | This test has been extensively validated in MS trials and specifically relates to optic neuritis and general optic nerve damage in MS | Validated in NMO and associated with retinal axonal and neuronal loss | Binocular testing: the total number of correct letters was counted and reported. |
| Modality: cognitive scores | ||||
| Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT) | Evaluates information processing and working memory domains: 10 abstract symbols are paired with numbers ranging from 1 to 10. The subject is given 90 s to pair new symbols with the correct number. | The most sensitive test able to detect cognitive impairment associated with MS in the Iranian population | Also affected in NMO due to cortical degeneration | Neuropsychological battery administered by a neuropsychologist: the total number of symbols correctly paired with the corresponding numbers in 90 s |
| California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) version 2 | Evaluates short- and long-term verbal memory: a list of 10 words that are read to the subject 5 times; the subject then recalls the words, and the response is recorded. After 20 min, the subject is asked to recall the words. | The second most sensitive cognitive test in the Iranian population and used to detect MS-related cognitive weakness | Verbal memory is also affected in NMO | Neuropsychological battery administered by a neuropsychologist: the total number of correct words over the first 5 trials is defined as the “total learning score.” The total number of recalled words after 20 min is defined as the “delayed recall score.” |
Dale et al. (1999).
Geurts et al. (2012).
Popescu et al. (2010).
Kim et al. (2012).
Giorgio et al. (2014).
Filippi et al. (1999).
Wegner (2013).
von Glehn et al. (2014).
Roosendaal et al. (2010).
Liu et al. (2011).
Balcer and Frohman (2010).
Eshaghi et al. (2012).
Saji et al. (2013).
Fig. 1(A, B and C) show selected independent component analysis maps from resting-state networks of healthy controls that correspond to the (A) visual, (B) sensorimotor, and (C) default mode networks. (D) shows Jülich histological probability masks of (from left to right) the corpus callosum, optic radiation and corticospinal tracts.
Fig. 2Diagram of multimodal data fusion, learning kernel weights and cross-validation.
Demographic characteristics.
| Measures | Groups | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HC | NMO | MS | |
| Mean age ± SD | 31.94 ± 9.07 | 33.58 ± 10.1 | 32.85 ± 8.49 |
| Mean disease duration ± SD | – | 6.07 ± 3.29 | 8.04 ± 7.04 |
| Gender ratio (female:male) | 31:4 | 26:4 | 22:3 |
| Mean years of education ± SD | 13.4 ± 2.92 | 12.41 ± 3.58 | 12.96 ± 3.56 |
Healthy control.
Neuromyelitis optica.
Multiple sclerosis.
Fig. 3Boxplots show the median and 75th percentile for each variable extracted from (A) imaging or (B) clinical and cognitive assessments. Functional connectivity values are normalized (mean = 0, and SD = 1.5).
Fig. 4Between predictor correlations for imaging, cognitive and clinical parameters in patients. Each row and column represent a predictor (Table 1), and each rectangle represents the correlation coefficient between the corresponding variables on the x and y axes.
Importance ranking of significant modalities.
| Binary classification | Multi-class classification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modality rank | MS vs NMO | MS vs HC | NMO vs HC | MS vs NMO vs HC |
| 1 | Visible WM lesion load (0.20) | Visible WM lesion load (0.49) | Clinical scores (0.41) | Visible WM lesion load (0.38) |
| 2 | DTI (0.18) | DTI (0.16) | Cognitive scores (0.18) | fMRI (0.31) |
| 3 | fMRI (0.17) | Clinical scores (0.13) | fMRI (0.16) | Cognitive scores (0.16) |
| 4 | Cognitive scores (0.16) | fMRI (0.10) | DTI (0.13) | DTI (0.14) |
| 5 | Gray matter measures (0.15) | Cognitive scores (0.08) | Gray matter measures (0.10) | – |
| 6 | Spinal cord area (0.06) | Gray matter measures (0.05) | Spinal cord area (0.002) | – |
| 7 | Clinical scores (0.08) | Spinal cord area (0.004) | Visible WM lesion load (<0.0001) | – |
Multi-kernel learning combines different kernels and gives each of them a weight. Linear combination of each kernel and their weights will be used for the combined kernel. Here, relative weight is defined as the normalized weight that is given to each kernel, and is averaged for each modality over all 10 folds.