Natsuki Igata1, Shingo Kakeda1, Keita Watanabe2, Atsushi Nozaki3, Dan Rettmann4, Hidekuni Narimatsu1, Satoru Ide1, Osamu Abe5, Yukunori Korogi1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Occupational and Environmental Health School of Medicine, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu, 807-8555, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Occupational and Environmental Health School of Medicine, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu, 807-8555, Japan. sapient@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp. 3. MR Applications and Workflow Asia Pacific GE Healthcare Japan, Tokyo, Japan. 4. MR Applications and Workflow GE Healthcare, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the motion correction method with prospective motion correction (PROMO) in a voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analysis for 'uncooperative' patient populations. METHODS: High-resolution 3D T1-weighted imaging both with and without PROMO were performed in 33 uncooperative patients with Parkinson's disease (n = 11) or dementia (n = 22). We compared the grey matter (GM) volumes and cortical thickness between the scans with and without PROMO. RESULTS: For the mean total GM volume with the VBM analysis, the scan without PROMO showed a significantly smaller volume than that with PROMO (p < 0.05), which was caused by segmentation problems due to motion during acquisition. The whole-brain VBM analysis showed significant GM volume reductions in some regions in the scans without PROMO (familywise error corrected p < 0.05). In the cortical thickness analysis, the scans without PROMO also showed decreased cortical thickness compared to the scan with PROMO (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results with the uncooperative patients indicate that the use of PROMO can reduce misclassification during segmentation of the VBM analyses, although it may not prevent GM volume reduction. KEY POINTS: • Motion artifacts pose significant problems for VBM analyses. • PROMO correction can reduce the motion artifacts in high-resolution 3D T1WI. • The use of PROMO may improve the precision of VBM analyses.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the motion correction method with prospective motion correction (PROMO) in a voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analysis for 'uncooperative' patient populations. METHODS: High-resolution 3D T1-weighted imaging both with and without PROMO were performed in 33 uncooperative patients with Parkinson's disease (n = 11) or dementia (n = 22). We compared the grey matter (GM) volumes and cortical thickness between the scans with and without PROMO. RESULTS: For the mean total GM volume with the VBM analysis, the scan without PROMO showed a significantly smaller volume than that with PROMO (p < 0.05), which was caused by segmentation problems due to motion during acquisition. The whole-brain VBM analysis showed significant GM volume reductions in some regions in the scans without PROMO (familywise error corrected p < 0.05). In the cortical thickness analysis, the scans without PROMO also showed decreased cortical thickness compared to the scan with PROMO (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results with the uncooperative patients indicate that the use of PROMO can reduce misclassification during segmentation of the VBM analyses, although it may not prevent GM volume reduction. KEY POINTS: • Motion artifacts pose significant problems for VBM analyses. • PROMO correction can reduce the motion artifacts in high-resolution 3D T1WI. • The use of PROMO may improve the precision of VBM analyses.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Matthew J Kempton; Zainab Salvador; Marcus R Munafò; John R Geddes; Andrew Simmons; Sophia Frangou; Steven C R Williams Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2011-07
Authors: Dominic Holland; James B Brewer; Donald J Hagler; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Christine Fenema-Notestine; Anders M Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Timothy T Brown; Joshua M Kuperman; Matthew Erhart; Nathan S White; J Cooper Roddey; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; Eric T Han; Dan Rettmann; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Martin Reuter; M Dylan Tisdall; Abid Qureshi; Randy L Buckner; André J W van der Kouwe; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: M Dylan Tisdall; Aaron T Hess; Martin Reuter; Ernesta M Meintjes; Bruce Fischl; André J W van der Kouwe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.668