Literature DB >> 31898013

Effect of changing the analyzed image contrast on the accuracy of intracranial volume extraction using Brain Extraction Tool 2.

Masami Goto1, Akifumi Hagiwara2, Ayumi Kato2,3, Shohei Fujita2,4, Masaaki Hori2,5, Koji Kamagata2, Shigeki Aoki2, Osamu Abe4, Hajime Sakamoto6, Yasuaki Sakano6, Shinsuke Kyogoku6, Hiroyuki Daida6.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of changing the contrast of an analyzed image on the accuracy of intracranial volume (ICV) extraction using the Brain Extraction Tool (BET2) in healthy adults and patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS), including infants. Twelve SWS patients, including infants, and 12 healthy participants were imaged on a 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine. All individuals underwent quantification of relaxation times and proton density using multi-echo acquisition of saturation recovery with turbo-spin-echo readout (QRAPMASTER). Based on the QRAPMASTER data, we created images with seven contrasts (T1-WI, T2-WI, PD-WI, T2 short-tau inversion recovery [STIR], proton density [PD] STIR, T2STIR + PDSTIR, and T1-WI + T2-WI + PD-WI) by post-processing with SyMRI software. ICVs extracted with BET2 from the FMRIB (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain) Software Library with each of the seven image contrasts were compared with manually extracted ICVs, which is the gold standard reviewed by a board-certificated neuroradiologist. Manual extraction was performed on T1-WI and T2STIR. Statistical analyses were performed with Jaccard similarity coefficients (J). The highest J score was found in T1-WI + T2-WI + PD-WI in all participants (0.8451); T1-WI in healthy participants (0.8984); T2STIR in participants with SWS (0.8325). Our findings suggest that T1-WI and T2STIR should be used in ICV extraction performed using BET2 on healthy participants and infants, respectively. Additionally, if the analyzed individuals include both healthy participants and infants, T1-WI + T2-WI + PD-WI should be used.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brain extraction; FSL; Sturge–weber syndrome; Synthetic MRI; “f” parameter

Year:  2020        PMID: 31898013     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-019-00551-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  29 in total

1.  BEaST: brain extraction based on nonlocal segmentation technique.

Authors:  Simon F Eskildsen; Pierrick Coupé; Vladimir Fonov; José V Manjón; Kelvin K Leung; Nicolas Guizard; Shafik N Wassef; Lasse Riis Østergaard; D Louis Collins
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: Optimization for clinical usage.

Authors:  J B M Warntjes; O Dahlqvist Leinhard; J West; P Lundberg
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Infant Brain Extraction in T1-Weighted MR Images Using BET and Refinement Using LCDG and MGRF Models.

Authors:  Amir Alansary; Marwa Ismail; Ahmed Soliman; Fahmi Khalifa; Matthew Nitzken; Ahmed Elnakib; Mahmoud Mostapha; Austin Black; Katie Stinebruner; Manuel F Casanova; Jacek M Zurada; Ayman El-Baz
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 5.772

4.  Automated brain extraction from T2-weighted magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Sushmita Datta; Ponnada A Narayana
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Clinical Feasibility of Synthetic MRI in Multiple Sclerosis: A Diagnostic and Volumetric Validation Study.

Authors:  T Granberg; M Uppman; F Hashim; C Cananau; L E Nordin; S Shams; J Berglund; Y Forslin; P Aspelin; S Fredrikson; M Kristoffersen-Wiberg
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  MR signal abnormalities at 1.5 T in Alzheimer's dementia and normal aging.

Authors:  F Fazekas; J B Chawluk; A Alavi; H I Hurtig; R A Zimmerman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Fast robust automated brain extraction.

Authors:  Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Improving the SIENA performance using BEaST brain extraction.

Authors:  Kunio Nakamura; Simon F Eskildsen; Sridar Narayanan; Douglas L Arnold; D Louis Collins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Differentiating AD from aging using semiautomated measurement of hippocampal atrophy rates.

Authors:  Josephine Barnes; Rachael I Scahill; Richard G Boyes; Chris Frost; Emma B Lewis; Charlotte L Rossor; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Voxel-based cortical thickness measurements in MRI.

Authors:  Chloe Hutton; Enrico De Vita; John Ashburner; Ralf Deichmann; Robert Turner
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Advantages of Using Both Voxel- and Surface-based Morphometry in Cortical Morphology Analysis: A Review of Various Applications.

Authors:  Masami Goto; Osamu Abe; Akifumi Hagiwara; Shohei Fujita; Koji Kamagata; Masaaki Hori; Shigeki Aoki; Takahiro Osada; Seiki Konishi; Yoshitaka Masutani; Hajime Sakamoto; Yasuaki Sakano; Shinsuke Kyogoku; Hiroyuki Daida
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 2.760

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.