| Literature DB >> 30278372 |
Stefan Klöppel1, Shan Yang2, Elias Kellner2, Marco Reisert2, Bernhard Heimbach3, Horst Urbach2, Jennifer Linn4, Stefan Weidauer5, Tamara Andres6, Maximilian Bröse6, Jacob Lahr7, Niklas Lützen2, Philipp T Meyer8, Jessica Peter9, Ahmed Abdulkadir10, Sabine Hellwig11, Karl Egger12.
Abstract
The identification of pathological atrophy in MRI scans requires specialized training, which is scarce outside dedicated centers. We sought to investigate the clinical usefulness of computer-generated representations of local grey matter (GM) loss or increased volume of cerebral fluids (CSF) as normalized deviations (z-scores) from healthy aging to either aid human visual readings or directly detect pathological atrophy. Two experienced neuroradiologists rated atrophy in 30 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), 30 patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 30 with dementia due to Lewy-body disease (LBD) and 30 healthy controls (HC) on a three-point scale in 10 anatomical regions as reference gold standard. Seven raters, varying in their experience with MRI diagnostics rated all cases on the same scale once with and once without computer-generated volume deviation maps that were overlaid on anatomical slices. In addition, we investigated the predictive value of the computer generated deviation maps on their own for the detection of atrophy as identified by the gold standard raters. Inter and intra-rater agreements of the two gold standard raters were substantial (Cohen's kappa κ > 0.62). The intra-rater agreement of the other raters ranged from fair (κ = 0.37) to substantial (κ = 0.72) and improved on average by 0.13 (0.57 < κ < 0.87) when volume deviation maps were displayed. The seven other raters showed good agreement with the gold standard in regions including the hippocampus but agreement was substantially lower in e.g. the parietal cortex and did not improve with the display of atrophy scores. Rating speed increased over the course of the study and irrespective of the presentation of voxel-wise deviations. Automatically detected large deviations of local volume were consistently associated with gold standard atrophy reading as shown by an area under the receiver operator characteristic of up to 0.95 for the hippocampus region. When applying these test characteristics to prevalences typically found in a memory clinic, we observed a positive or negative predictive value close to or above 0.9 in the hippocampus for almost all of the expected cases. The volume deviation maps derived from CSF volume increase were generally better in detecting atrophy. Our study demonstrates an agreement of visual ratings among non-experts not further increased by displaying, region-specific deviations of volume. The high predictive value of computer generated local deviations independent from human interaction and the consistent advantages of CSF-over GM-based estimations should be considered in the development of diagnostic tools and indicate clinical utility well beyond aiding visual assessments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30278372 PMCID: PMC6169102 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.09.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Sociodemographic characterization of the study cohorts.
| Healthy controls | Alzheimer's disease | Lewy-body dementia | Frontotemporal dementia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| n (m/f) | 13/17 | 14/16 | 14/16 | 11/19 | ||||
| Age (years) | 72.4 | 4.4 | 71.6 | 7.4 | 72.2 | 7.7 | 65.7 | 7.8 |
| Education (years) | 16.7 | 2.9 | 14.8 | 2.4 | 10.9 | 2.4 | 11.1 | 3.7 |
| MMSE | 29.0 | 1.5 | 23.2 | 3.2 | 22.1 | 3.2 | 22.8 | 3.4 |
Note: SD = standard deviation, MMSE = Mini Mental Status Examination
For n = 6, no MMSE was available but cognitive functioning was evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, Nasreddine et al. (2005)). MoCA scores were converted into MMSE scores according to Roalf et al. (2013).
Fig. 1Web interface for readers showing T1 image, atrophy scores, rating questionnaire, and basic demographic information. The interface allowed to scroll through the slices of the structural MR image in all orthogonal views, to adjust the contrast and to increase each subpanel to full-screen. The sections showing the atrophy scores (bottom right on this panel) were static but could also be enlarged to fill the screen.
Fig. 2Distribution of atrophy readings per region and diagnostic category by the two gold standard readers. Regions which one reader identified as normal and the other as borderline (0,1) entered the same category as two normal ratings (0,0). Accordingly pathological atrophy identified by just one reader (1,2) was assigned the same category as two atrophy ratings (2,2).
Fig. 3Accuracy of atrophy detections in relation to the gold standard reading. Blue indicates the accuracy using a strict definition of agreement while red displays accuracy levels with a more liberal criterion (see main text for detail). The reported regions are indicated above each panel. Numbers in brackets indicate the percentage of cases remaining after excluding those with conflicting ratings of the two gold standard readers. The readers (R1-R7) are ordered by increasing experience from left to right. For each reader, the left bar indicated performance without and the right bar with z-scores. The trendlines indicate qualitatively the relation between experience and accuracy without (dashed trendlines) and with (solid trendline) atrophy scores. The transparent horizontal blue and red line denote the chance level 0.2 for full and 0.46 partial accuracy, respectively.
Fig. 4Left panel: Boxplots of individual reading times with (blue) and without (grey) atrophy score overlay. R1..R7 indicate the seven readers and GS-R1 and GS-R2 are the two gold standard readers. Note that GS-R1 and GS-R2 did not see the atrophy score maps. Right panel: Boxplots of individual reading times of first (grey) and second (blue) presentation. Note that GS-R1 and GS-R2 performed all readings in a single block.
Intra-rater consistency of atrophy reading with and without atrophy score maps evaluated by Cohen's Kappa statistics (κ) and by percent agreement (%a, defined as exactly identical scores) between test and re-test.
| Reader | Native MRI ( | Native MRI + atrophy score map ( |
|---|---|---|
| GS-R1 | 0.65/67 | n.a. |
| GS-R2 | 0.68/73 | n.a. |
| R1 | 0.72/70 | 0.87/82 |
| R2 | 0.37/56 | 0.67/64 |
| R3 | 0.61/73 | 0.53/0.71 |
| R4 | 0.66/0.77 | 0.83/0.84 |
| R5 | 0.56/0.79 | 0.55/0.81 |
| R6 | 0.63/0.79 | 0.76/0.82 |
| R7 | 0.45/64 | 0.71/69 |
Fig. 5Receiver-operator curves for each of 5 anatomical regions when pooled across both hemispheres separately for z-Scores indicating either grey or white matter volume with atrophy scores larger than 2. We focused on cases with clear readings which were rated by both gold standard readers unanimously as normal or atrophic. The percentage of cases fulfilling that criterion is reported in brackets (clear readings).
Characteristic of classification performance based on the region-wise volumes with atrophy scores above 2 for grey matter (GM) and cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) evaluated using the non-ambiguous readings only. The fraction of expected unambiguous readings is denoted %unambiguous. The prevalence indicates the expected fraction of atrophy in each region for the population expected in a hypothetical memory clinic setting. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) as well as the rate of positive predictions (RPP) are reported for the assumed prevalences. SE: sensitivity; SP: specificity.
| GM | CSF | Expected population | GM | CSF | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE | SP | SE | SP | Prevalence | %Unambiguous | PPV | NPV | RPP | PPV | NPV | RPP | |
| Hippocampus | 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.94 | 0.46 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.41 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.38 |
| Temporo-lateral | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.13 | 0.8 | 0.52 | 0.99 | 0.24 | 0.52 | 0.99 | 0.25 |
| Parietal | 0.57 | 0.81 | 0.8 | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.34 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.58 |
| Frontal | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.9 | 0.79 | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.7 | 0.47 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.6 |
| Occipital | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 0.12 | 0.84 | 0.3 | 0.97 | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.96 | 0.17 |