Charidimos Tsagkas1,2, Anna Altermatt2,3, Ulrike Bonati4, Simon Pezold3, Julia Reinhard5, Michael Amann1,2,5, Philippe Cattin3, Jens Wuerfel2,3, Dirk Fischer4, Katrin Parmar6, Arne Fischmann5,7. 1. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Medical Image Analysis Center (MIAC AG), Basel, Mittlere Strasse 83, CH - 4031, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Center for medical Image Analysis & Navigation (CIAN), Department of Bioengineering, University Basel, Gewerbestrasse 14, CH-4123, Allschwil, Switzerland. 4. Division of Neuropediatrics, University of Basel Children's Hospital, Spitalstrasse 33, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. katrin.parmar@usb.ch. 7. Division of Neuroradiology, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, CH-6006, Luzern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the precision and accuracy of the semi-automated cord image analyser (Cordial) for lumbar spinal cord (SC) volumetry in 3D T1w MRI data of healthy controls (HC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 3D T1w images of 10 HC (w/m: 6/4; age range: 18-41 years) were acquired at one 3T-scanner in two MRI sessions (time interval 14.9±6.1 days). Each subject was scanned twice per session, allowing determination of test-retest reliability both in back-to-back (intra-session) and scan-rescan images (inter-session). Cordial was applied for lumbar cord segmentation twice per image by two raters, allowing for assessment of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and compared to a manual gold standard. RESULTS: While manually segmented volumes were larger (mean: 2028±245 mm3 vs. Cordial: 1636±300 mm3, p<0.001), accuracy assessments between manually and semi-automatically segmented images showed a mean Dice-coefficient of 0.88±0.05. Calculation of within-subject coefficients of variation (COV) demonstrated high intra-session (1.22-1.86%), inter-session (1.26-1.84%), as well as intra-rater (1.73-1.83%) reproducibility. No significant difference was shown between intra- and inter-session reproducibility or between intra-rater reliabilities. Although inter-rater reproducibility (COV: 2.87%) was slightly lower compared to all other reproducibility measures, between rater consistency was very strong (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.974). CONCLUSION: While under-estimating the lumbar SCV, Cordial still provides excellent inter- and intra-session reproducibility showing high potential for application in longitudinal trials. KEY POINTS: • Lumbar spinal cord segmentation using the semi-automated cord image analyser (Cordial) is feasible. • Lumbar spinal cord is 40-mm cord segment 60 mm above conus medullaris. • Cordial provides excellent inter- and intra-session reproducibility in lumbar spinal cord region. • Cordial shows high potential for application in longitudinal trials.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the precision and accuracy of the semi-automated cord image analyser (Cordial) for lumbar spinal cord (SC) volumetry in 3D T1w MRI data of healthy controls (HC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 3D T1w images of 10 HC (w/m: 6/4; age range: 18-41 years) were acquired at one 3T-scanner in two MRI sessions (time interval 14.9±6.1 days). Each subject was scanned twice per session, allowing determination of test-retest reliability both in back-to-back (intra-session) and scan-rescan images (inter-session). Cordial was applied for lumbar cord segmentation twice per image by two raters, allowing for assessment of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and compared to a manual gold standard. RESULTS: While manually segmented volumes were larger (mean: 2028±245 mm3 vs. Cordial: 1636±300 mm3, p<0.001), accuracy assessments between manually and semi-automatically segmented images showed a mean Dice-coefficient of 0.88±0.05. Calculation of within-subject coefficients of variation (COV) demonstrated high intra-session (1.22-1.86%), inter-session (1.26-1.84%), as well as intra-rater (1.73-1.83%) reproducibility. No significant difference was shown between intra- and inter-session reproducibility or between intra-rater reliabilities. Although inter-rater reproducibility (COV: 2.87%) was slightly lower compared to all other reproducibility measures, between rater consistency was very strong (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.974). CONCLUSION: While under-estimating the lumbar SCV, Cordial still provides excellent inter- and intra-session reproducibility showing high potential for application in longitudinal trials. KEY POINTS: • Lumbar spinal cord segmentation using the semi-automated cord image analyser (Cordial) is feasible. • Lumbar spinal cord is 40-mm cord segment 60 mm above conus medullaris. • Cordial provides excellent inter- and intra-session reproducibility in lumbar spinal cord region. • Cordial shows high potential for application in longitudinal trials.
Authors: Min Chen; Aaron Carass; Jiwon Oh; Govind Nair; Dzung L Pham; Daniel S Reich; Jerry L Prince Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: J S Han; B Kaufman; S J El Yousef; J E Benson; C T Bonstelle; R J Alfidi; J R Haaga; H Yeung; R G Huss Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1983-12 Impact factor: 3.959
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: P W Stroman; C Wheeler-Kingshott; M Bacon; J M Schwab; R Bosma; J Brooks; D 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; I Tracey Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Valentina Panara; Alyssa H Zhu; Eduardo Caverzasi; William A Stern; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Débora Terribilli; Maristela S Schaufelberger; Fábio L S Duran; Marcus V Zanetti; Pedro K Curiati; Paulo R Menezes; Márcia Scazufca; Edson Amaro; Cláudia C Leite; Geraldo F Busatto Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Marios C Yiannakas; Puneet Kakar; Luke R Hoy; David H Miller; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 3.240