Sven Haller1,2, Pavel Falkovskiy3,4, Reto Meuli4, Jean-Philippe Thiran5, Gunnar Krueger6, Karl-Olof Lovblad7,8, Tobias Kober3,5, Alexis Roche3,4, Bénédicte Marechal3,4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. sven.haller@me.com. 2. Affidea Centre de Diagnostique Radiologique de Carouge CDRC, Geneva, Switzerland. sven.haller@me.com. 3. Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthcare HC CEMEA SUI DI BM PI, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. LTS5, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Boston, MA, USA. 7. Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Automated brain MRI morphometry, including hippocampal volumetry for Alzheimer disease, is increasingly recognized as a biomarker. Consequently, a rapidly increasing number of software tools have become available. We tested whether modifications of simple MR protocol parameters typically used in clinical routine systematically bias automated brain MRI segmentation results. METHODS: The study was approved by the local ethical committee and included 20 consecutive patients (13 females, mean age 75.8 ± 13.8 years) undergoing clinical brain MRI at 1.5 T for workup of cognitive decline. We compared three 3D T1 magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequences with the following parameter settings: ADNI-2 1.2 mm iso-voxel, no image filtering, LOCAL- 1.0 mm iso-voxel no image filtering, LOCAL+ 1.0 mm iso-voxel with image edge enhancement. Brain segmentation was performed by two different and established analysis tools, FreeSurfer and MorphoBox, using standard parameters. RESULTS: Spatial resolution (1.0 versus 1.2 mm iso-voxel) and modification in contrast resulted in relative estimated volume difference of up to 4.28 % (p < 0.001) in cortical gray matter and 4.16 % (p < 0.01) in hippocampus. Image data filtering resulted in estimated volume difference of up to 5.48 % (p < 0.05) in cortical gray matter. CONCLUSION: A simple change of MR parameters, notably spatial resolution, contrast, and filtering, may systematically bias results of automated brain MRI morphometry of up to 4-5 %. This is in the same range as early disease-related brain volume alterations, for example, in Alzheimer disease. Automated brain segmentation software packages should therefore require strict MR parameter selection or include compensatory algorithms to avoid MR parameter-related bias of brain morphometry results.
INTRODUCTION: Automated brain MRI morphometry, including hippocampal volumetry for Alzheimer disease, is increasingly recognized as a biomarker. Consequently, a rapidly increasing number of software tools have become available. We tested whether modifications of simple MR protocol parameters typically used in clinical routine systematically bias automated brain MRI segmentation results. METHODS: The study was approved by the local ethical committee and included 20 consecutive patients (13 females, mean age 75.8 ± 13.8 years) undergoing clinical brain MRI at 1.5 T for workup of cognitive decline. We compared three 3D T1 magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequences with the following parameter settings: ADNI-2 1.2 mm iso-voxel, no image filtering, LOCAL- 1.0 mm iso-voxel no image filtering, LOCAL+ 1.0 mm iso-voxel with image edge enhancement. Brain segmentation was performed by two different and established analysis tools, FreeSurfer and MorphoBox, using standard parameters. RESULTS: Spatial resolution (1.0 versus 1.2 mm iso-voxel) and modification in contrast resulted in relative estimated volume difference of up to 4.28 % (p < 0.001) in cortical gray matter and 4.16 % (p < 0.01) in hippocampus. Image data filtering resulted in estimated volume difference of up to 5.48 % (p < 0.05) in cortical gray matter. CONCLUSION: A simple change of MR parameters, notably spatial resolution, contrast, and filtering, may systematically bias results of automated brain MRI morphometry of up to 4-5 %. This is in the same range as early disease-related brain volume alterations, for example, in Alzheimer disease. Automated brain segmentation software packages should therefore require strict MR parameter selection or include compensatory algorithms to avoid MR parameter-related bias of brain morphometry results.
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Matt A Bernstein; Bret J Borowski; Jeffrey L Gunter; Nick C Fox; Paul M Thompson; Norbert Schuff; Gunnar Krueger; Ronald J Killiany; Charles S Decarli; Anders M Dale; Owen W Carmichael; Duygu Tosun; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Jorge Jovicich; Silvester Czanner; Xiao Han; David Salat; Andre van der Kouwe; Brian Quinn; Jenni Pacheco; Marilyn Albert; Ronald Killiany; Deborah Blacker; Paul Maguire; Diana Rosas; Nikos Makris; Randy Gollub; Anders Dale; Bradford C Dickerson; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Susanne G Mueller; Michael W Weiner; Leon J Thal; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John Q Trojanowski; Arthur W Toga; Laurel Beckett Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Ed H B M Gronenschild; Petra Habets; Heidi I L Jacobs; Ron Mengelers; Nico Rozendaal; Jim van Os; Machteld Marcelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M G F Longo; J Conklin; S F Cauley; K Setsompop; Q Tian; D Polak; M Polackal; D Splitthoff; W Liu; R G González; P W Schaefer; J E Kirsch; O Rapalino; S Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M W Vernooij; F B Pizzini; R Schmidt; M Smits; T A Yousry; N Bargallo; G B Frisoni; S Haller; F Barkhof Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Christopher Bowles; Chen Qin; Ricardo Guerrero; Roger Gunn; Alexander Hammers; David Alexander Dickie; Maria Valdés Hernández; Joanna Wardlaw; Daniel Rueckert Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Mara Ten Kate; Silvia Ingala; Adam J Schwarz; Nick C Fox; Gaël Chételat; Bart N M van Berckel; Michael Ewers; Christopher Foley; Juan Domingo Gispert; Derek Hill; Michael C Irizarry; Adriaan A Lammertsma; José Luis Molinuevo; Craig Ritchie; Philip Scheltens; Mark E Schmidt; Pieter Jelle Visser; Adam Waldman; Joanna Wardlaw; Sven Haller; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 6.982