Jayanthi Sivaswamy1, Alphin J Thottupattu1, Raghav Mehta2, R Sheelakumari3, Chandrasekharan Kesavadas3. 1. Center for Visual Information Technology, International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 2. Center for Visual Information Technology, International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Hyderabad, Telangana; Probabilistic Vision Group, Centre for Intelligent Machines, Department of electrical and Computer Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Imaging Sciences and Interventional Radiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Abstract
CONTEXT: A brain magnetic resonanace imaging (MRI) atlas plays an important role in many neuroimage analysis tasks as it provides an atlas with a standard coordinate system which is needed for spatial normalization of a brain MRI. Ideally, this atlas should be as near to the average brain of the population being studied as possible. AIMS: The aim of this study is to construct and validate the Indian brain MRI atlas of young Indian population and the corresponding structure probability maps. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a population-specific atlas generation and validation process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 young healthy adults (M/F = 50/50), aged 21-30 years, were recruited for the study. Three different 1.5-T scanners were used for image acquisition. The atlas and structure maps were created using nonrigid groupwise registration and label-transfer techniques. COMPARISON AND VALIDATION: The generated atlas was compared against other atlases to study the population-specific trends. RESULTS: The atlas-based comparison indicated a signifi cant difference between the global size of Indian and Caucasian brains. This difference was noteworthy for all three global measures, namely, length, width, and height. Such a comparison with the Chinese and Korean brain templates indicate all 3 to be comparable in length but signifi cantly different (smaller) in terms of height and width. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm that there is significant difference in brain morphology between Indian, Chinese, and Caucasian populations.
CONTEXT: A brain magnetic resonanace imaging (MRI) atlas plays an important role in many neuroimage analysis tasks as it provides an atlas with a standard coordinate system which is needed for spatial normalization of a brain MRI. Ideally, this atlas should be as near to the average brain of the population being studied as possible. AIMS: The aim of this study is to construct and validate the Indian brain MRI atlas of young Indian population and the corresponding structure probability maps. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a population-specific atlas generation and validation process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 young healthy adults (M/F = 50/50), aged 21-30 years, were recruited for the study. Three different 1.5-T scanners were used for image acquisition. The atlas and structure maps were created using nonrigid groupwise registration and label-transfer techniques. COMPARISON AND VALIDATION: The generated atlas was compared against other atlases to study the population-specific trends. RESULTS: The atlas-based comparison indicated a signifi cant difference between the global size of Indian and Caucasian brains. This difference was noteworthy for all three global measures, namely, length, width, and height. Such a comparison with the Chinese and Korean brain templates indicate all 3 to be comparable in length but signifi cantly different (smaller) in terms of height and width. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm that there is significant difference in brain morphology between Indian, Chinese, and Caucasian populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Indian brain atlas; MRI; structure probability map
Authors: Anca-Larisa Sandu; Gordon D Waiter; Roger T Staff; Nafeesa Nazlee; Tina Habota; Chris J McNeil; Dorota Chapko; Justin H Williams; Caroline H D Fall; Giriraj R Chandak; Shailesh Pene; Murali Krishna; Andrew M McIntosh; Heather C Whalley; Kalyanaraman Kumaran; Ghattu V Krishnaveni; Alison D Murray Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Marek Kijonka; Damian Borys; Krzysztof Psiuk-Maksymowicz; Kamil Gorczewski; Piotr Wojcieszek; Bartosz Kossowski; Artur Marchewka; Andrzej Swierniak; Maria Sokol; Barbara Bobek-Billewicz Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: R Jarrett Rushmore; Kyle Sunderland; Holly Carrington; Justine Chen; Michael Halle; Andras Lasso; G Papadimitriou; N Prunier; Elizabeth Rizzoni; Brynn Vessey; Peter Wilson-Braun; Yogesh Rathi; Marek Kubicki; Sylvain Bouix; Edward Yeterian; Nikos Makris Journal: Front Neuroanat Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 3.543
Authors: Bharath Holla; Paul A Taylor; Daniel R Glen; John A Lee; Nilakshi Vaidya; Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta; Ganesan Venkatasubramanian; Pramod Kumar Pal; Jitender Saini; Naren P Rao; Chirag K Ahuja; Rebecca Kuriyan; Murali Krishna; Debashish Basu; Kartik Kalyanram; Amit Chakrabarti; Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos; Gareth J Barker; Robert W Cox; Gunter Schumann; Rose Dawn Bharath; Vivek Benegal Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 5.399