Alberto Llera1, Ismael Huertas2,3, Pablo Mir4, Christian F Beckmann1,5,6. 1. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ismhuefer@gmail.com. 3. Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento, Servicio de Neurología y Neurofisiología Clínica, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Avda. Manuel Siurot s/n., 41013, Seville, Spain. ismhuefer@gmail.com. 4. Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento, Servicio de Neurología y Neurofisiología Clínica, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Avda. Manuel Siurot s/n., 41013, Seville, Spain. 5. Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differences in site, device, and/or settings may cause large variations in the intensity profile of dopamine transporter (DAT) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images. However, the current standard to evaluate these images, the striatal binding ratio (SBR), does not efficiently account for this heterogeneity and the assessment can be unequivalent across distinct acquisition pipelines. In this work, we present a voxel-based automated approach to intensity normalize such type of data that improves on cross-session interpretation. PROCEDURES: The normalization method consists of a reparametrization of the voxel values based on the cumulative density function (CDF) of a Gamma distribution modeling the specific region intensity. The harmonization ability was tested in 1342 SPECT images from the PPMI repository, acquired with 7 distinct gamma camera models and at 24 different sites. We compared the striatal quantification across distinct cameras for raw intensities, SBR values, and after applying the Gamma CDF (GDCF) harmonization. As a proof-of-concept, we evaluated the impact of GCDF normalization in a classification task between controls and Parkinson disease patients. RESULTS: Raw striatal intensities and SBR values presented significant differences across distinct camera models. We demonstrate that GCDF normalization efficiently alleviated these differences in striatal quantification and with values constrained to a fixed interval [0, 1]. Also, our method allowed a fully automated image assessment that provided maximal classification ability, given by an area under the curve (AUC) of AUC = 0.94 when used mean regional variables and AUC = 0.98 when used voxel-based variables. CONCLUSION: The GCDF normalization method is useful to standardize the intensity of DAT SPECT images in an automated fashion and enables the development of unbiased algorithms using multicenter datasets. This method may constitute a key pre-processing step in the analysis of this type of images.
PURPOSE: Differences in site, device, and/or settings may cause large variations in the intensity profile of dopamine transporter (DAT) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images. However, the current standard to evaluate these images, the striatal binding ratio (SBR), does not efficiently account for this heterogeneity and the assessment can be unequivalent across distinct acquisition pipelines. In this work, we present a voxel-based automated approach to intensity normalize such type of data that improves on cross-session interpretation. PROCEDURES: The normalization method consists of a reparametrization of the voxel values based on the cumulative density function (CDF) of a Gamma distribution modeling the specific region intensity. The harmonization ability was tested in 1342 SPECT images from the PPMI repository, acquired with 7 distinct gamma camera models and at 24 different sites. We compared the striatal quantification across distinct cameras for raw intensities, SBR values, and after applying the Gamma CDF (GDCF) harmonization. As a proof-of-concept, we evaluated the impact of GCDF normalization in a classification task between controls and Parkinson diseasepatients. RESULTS: Raw striatal intensities and SBR values presented significant differences across distinct camera models. We demonstrate that GCDF normalization efficiently alleviated these differences in striatal quantification and with values constrained to a fixed interval [0, 1]. Also, our method allowed a fully automated image assessment that provided maximal classification ability, given by an area under the curve (AUC) of AUC = 0.94 when used mean regional variables and AUC = 0.98 when used voxel-based variables. CONCLUSION: The GCDF normalization method is useful to standardize the intensity of DAT SPECT images in an automated fashion and enables the development of unbiased algorithms using multicenter datasets. This method may constitute a key pre-processing step in the analysis of this type of images.
Authors: David S W Djang; Marcel J R Janssen; Nicolaas Bohnen; Jan Booij; Theodore A Henderson; Karl Herholz; Satoshi Minoshima; Christopher C Rowe; Osama Sabri; John Seibyl; Bart N M Van Berckel; Michele Wanner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mark W Woolrich; Saad Jbabdi; Brian Patenaude; Michael Chappell; Salima Makni; Timothy Behrens; Christian Beckmann; Mark Jenkinson; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Livia Tossici-Bolt; John C Dickson; Terez Sera; Robin de Nijs; Maria Claudia Bagnara; Catherine Jonsson; Egon Scheepers; Felicia Zito; Anita Seese; Pierre Malick Koulibaly; Ozlem L Kapucu; Michel Koole; Maria Raith; Jean George; Markus Nowak Lonsdale; Wolfgang Münzing; Klaus Tatsch; Andrea Varrone Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrea Varrone; John C Dickson; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Terez Sera; Susanne Asenbaum; Jan Booij; Ozlem L Kapucu; Andreas Kluge; Gitte M Knudsen; Pierre Malick Koulibaly; Flavio Nobili; Marco Pagani; Osama Sabri; Thierry Vander Borght; Koen Van Laere; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Russell A Poldrack; Chris I Baker; Joke Durnez; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Paul M Matthews; Marcus R Munafò; Thomas E Nichols; Jean-Baptiste Poline; Edward Vul; Tal Yarkoni Journal: Nat Rev Neurosci Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 34.870
Authors: Yang Nan; Javier Del Ser; Simon Walsh; Carola Schönlieb; Michael Roberts; Ian Selby; Kit Howard; John Owen; Jon Neville; Julien Guiot; Benoit Ernst; Ana Pastor; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Marion I Menzel; Sean Walsh; Wim Vos; Nina Flerin; Jean-Paul Charbonnier; Eva van Rikxoort; Avishek Chatterjee; Henry Woodruff; Philippe Lambin; Leonor Cerdá-Alberich; Luis Martí-Bonmatí; Francisco Herrera; Guang Yang Journal: Inf Fusion Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 17.564
Authors: Koen V Haak; Christian F Beckmann; Marianne Oldehinkel; Alberto Llera; Myrthe Faber; Ismael Huertas; Jan K Buitelaar; Bastiaan R Bloem; Andre F Marquand; Rick C Helmich Journal: Elife Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 8.140