Jannis Hanspach1, Michael G Dwyer1, Niels P Bergsland1,2, Xiang Feng3, Jesper Hagemeier1, Nicola Bertolino1, Paul Polak1, Jürgen R Reichenbach3,4, Robert Zivadinov1,5, Ferdinand Schweser1,5. 1. Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA. 2. Magnetic Resonance Laboratory, IRCCS Don Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy. 3. Medical Physics Group, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, TH, Germany. 4. Michael Stifel Center for Data-driven and Simulation Science Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, TH, Germany. 5. MRI Clinical and Translational Research Center, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and assess a method for the creation of templates for voxel-based analysis (VBA) and atlas-based approaches using quantitative magnetic susceptibility mapping (QSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied four strategies for the creation of magnetic susceptibility brain templates, derived as successive extensions of the conventional template generation (CONV) based on only T1 -weighted (T1 w) images. One method that used only T1 w images involved a minor improvement of CONV (U-CONV). One method used only magnetic susceptibility maps as input for template generation (DIRECT), and the other two used a linear combination of susceptibility and T1 w images (HYBRID) and an algorithm that directly used both image modalities (MULTI), respectively. The strategies were evaluated in a group of N = 10 healthy human subjects and semiquantitatively assessed by three experienced raters. Template quality was compared statistically via worth estimates (WEs) obtained with a log-linear Bradley-Terry model. RESULTS: The overall quality of the templates was better for strategies including both susceptibility and T1 w contrast (MULTI: WE = 0.62; HYBRID: WE = 0.21), but the best method depended on the anatomical region of interest. While methods using only one modality resulted in lower WEs, lowest overall WEs were obtained when only T1 w images were used (DIRECT: WE = 0.12; U-CONV: WE = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Template generation strategies that employ only magnetic susceptibility contrast or both magnetic susceptibility and T1 w contrast produce templates with the highest quality. The optimal approach depends on the anatomical structures of interest. The established approach of using only T1 w images (CONV) results in reduced image quality compared to all other approaches studied. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1474-1484.
PURPOSE: To develop and assess a method for the creation of templates for voxel-based analysis (VBA) and atlas-based approaches using quantitative magnetic susceptibility mapping (QSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied four strategies for the creation of magnetic susceptibility brain templates, derived as successive extensions of the conventional template generation (CONV) based on only T1 -weighted (T1 w) images. One method that used only T1 w images involved a minor improvement of CONV (U-CONV). One method used only magnetic susceptibility maps as input for template generation (DIRECT), and the other two used a linear combination of susceptibility and T1 w images (HYBRID) and an algorithm that directly used both image modalities (MULTI), respectively. The strategies were evaluated in a group of N = 10 healthy human subjects and semiquantitatively assessed by three experienced raters. Template quality was compared statistically via worth estimates (WEs) obtained with a log-linear Bradley-Terry model. RESULTS: The overall quality of the templates was better for strategies including both susceptibility and T1 w contrast (MULTI: WE = 0.62; HYBRID: WE = 0.21), but the best method depended on the anatomical region of interest. While methods using only one modality resulted in lower WEs, lowest overall WEs were obtained when only T1 w images were used (DIRECT: WE = 0.12; U-CONV: WE = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Template generation strategies that employ only magnetic susceptibility contrast or both magnetic susceptibility and T1 w contrast produce templates with the highest quality. The optimal approach depends on the anatomical structures of interest. The established approach of using only T1 w images (CONV) results in reduced image quality compared to all other approaches studied. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1474-1484.
Authors: Mishkin Derakhshan; Zografos Caramanos; Paul S Giacomini; Sridar Narayanan; Josefina Maranzano; Simon J Francis; Douglas L Arnold; D Louis Collins Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nicholas J Tustison; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Yuanjie Zheng; Alexander Egan; Paul A Yushkevich; James C Gee Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Brian Avants; Jeffrey T Duda; Junghoon Kim; Hui Zhang; John Pluta; James C Gee; John Whyte Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kathryn E Hammond; Janine M Lupo; Duan Xu; Meredith Metcalf; Douglas A C Kelley; Daniel Pelletier; Susan M Chang; Pratik Mukherjee; Daniel B Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: G Pontillo; M Petracca; S Monti; M Quarantelli; C Criscuolo; R Lanzillo; E Tedeschi; A Elefante; V Brescia Morra; A Brunetti; S Cocozza; G Palma Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Cherie L Marvel; Lin Chen; Michelle R Joyce; Owen P Morgan; Katherine G Iannuzzelli; Stephen M LaConte; Jonathan M Lisinski; Liana S Rosenthal; Xu Li Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 5.152