S Mohammadi1,2,3, N Weiskopf4,5. 1. Institut für systemische Neurowissenschaften, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland. 2. Max-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften, Stephanstr. 1a, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. 3. Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, Großbritannien. 4. Max-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften, Stephanstr. 1a, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. weiskopf@cbs.mpg.de. 5. Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, Großbritannien. weiskopf@cbs.mpg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current computational neuroanatomy focuses on morphological measurements of the brain using standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. In comparison quantitative MRI (qMRI) typically provides a better tissue contrast and also greatly improves the sensitivity and specificity with respect to the microstructural characteristics of tissue. OBJECTIVE: Current methodological developments in qMRI are presented, which go beyond morphology because this provides standardized measurements of the microstructure of the brain. The concept of in-vivo histology is introduced, based on biophysical modelling of qMRI data (hMRI) for determination of quantitative histology-like markers of the microstructure. RESULTS: The qMRI metrics can be used as direct biomarkers of the microstructural mechanisms driving observed morphological findings. The hMRI metrics utilize biophysical models of the MRI signal in order to determine 3‑dimensional maps of histology-like measurements in the white matter. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive brain tissue characterization using qMRI or hMRI has significant implications for both scientific and clinical applications. Both approaches improve the comparability across sites and time points, facilitate multicenter and longitudinal studies as well as standardized diagnostics. The hMRI is expected to shed new light on the relationship between brain microstructure, function and behavior both in health and disease. In the future hMRI will play an indispensable role in the field of computational neuroanatomy.
BACKGROUND: Current computational neuroanatomy focuses on morphological measurements of the brain using standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. In comparison quantitative MRI (qMRI) typically provides a better tissue contrast and also greatly improves the sensitivity and specificity with respect to the microstructural characteristics of tissue. OBJECTIVE: Current methodological developments in qMRI are presented, which go beyond morphology because this provides standardized measurements of the microstructure of the brain. The concept of in-vivo histology is introduced, based on biophysical modelling of qMRI data (hMRI) for determination of quantitative histology-like markers of the microstructure. RESULTS: The qMRI metrics can be used as direct biomarkers of the microstructural mechanisms driving observed morphological findings. The hMRI metrics utilize biophysical models of the MRI signal in order to determine 3‑dimensional maps of histology-like measurements in the white matter. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive brain tissue characterization using qMRI or hMRI has significant implications for both scientific and clinical applications. Both approaches improve the comparability across sites and time points, facilitate multicenter and longitudinal studies as well as standardized diagnostics. The hMRI is expected to shed new light on the relationship between brain microstructure, function and behavior both in health and disease. In the future hMRI will play an indispensable role in the field of computational neuroanatomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
In-vivo histology; Morphometry; Myelin; Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging; White matter
Authors: Christian Langkammer; Nikolaus Krebs; Walter Goessler; Eva Scheurer; Franz Ebner; Kathrin Yen; Franz Fazekas; Stefan Ropele Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Holly Bridge; Stuart Clare; Mark Jenkinson; Peter Jezzard; Andrew J Parker; Paul M Matthews Journal: J Vis Date: 2005-02-11 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Michael Deppe; Thomas Duning; Siawoosh Mohammadi; Wolfram Schwindt; Harald Kugel; Stefan Knecht; E Bernd Ringelstein Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: C A Wheeler-Kingshott; P W Stroman; J M Schwab; M Bacon; R Bosma; J Brooks; D W Cadotte; T Carlstedt; O Ciccarelli; J Cohen-Adad; A Curt; N Evangelou; M G Fehlings; M Filippi; B J Kelley; S Kollias; A Mackay; C A Porro; S Smith; S M Strittmatter; P Summers; A J Thompson; I Tracey Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-07-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Siawoosh Mohammadi; Daniel Carey; Fred Dick; Joern Diedrichsen; Martin I Sereno; Marco Reisert; Martina F Callaghan; Nikolaus Weiskopf Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 4.677