Literature DB >> 34000406

Quality control strategies for brain MRI segmentation and parcellation: practical approaches and recommendations - insights from The Maastricht Study.

Jennifer Monereo-Sánchez1, Joost J A de Jong2, Gerhard S Drenthen3, Magdalena Beran4, Walter H Backes5, Coen D A Stehouwer6, Miranda T Schram7, David E J Linden8, Jacobus F A Jansen9.   

Abstract

Quality control of brain segmentation is a fundamental step to ensure data quality. Manual quality control strategies are the current gold standard, although these may be unfeasible for large neuroimaging samples. Several options for automated quality control have been proposed, providing potential time efficient and reproducible alternatives. However, those have never been compared side to side, which prevents consensus in the appropriate QC strategy to use. This study aimed to elucidate the changes manual editing of brain segmentations produce in morphological estimates, and to analyze and compare the effects of different quality control strategies on the reduction of the measurement error. Structural MR images from 259 participants of The Maastricht Study were used. Morphological estimates were automatically extracted using FreeSurfer 6.0. Segmentations with inaccuracies were manually edited, and morphological estimates were compared before and after editing. In parallel, 12 quality control strategies were applied to the full sample. Those included: two manual strategies, in which images were visually inspected and either excluded or manually edited; five automated strategies, where outliers were excluded based on the tools "MRIQC" and "Qoala-T", and the metrics "morphological global measures", "Euler numbers" and "Contrast-to-Noise ratio"; and five semi-automated strategies, where the outliers detected through the mentioned tools and metrics were not excluded, but visually inspected and manually edited. In order to quantify the effects of each QC strategy, the proportion of unexplained variance relative to the total variance was extracted after the application of each QC strategy, and the resulting differences compared. Manually editing brain surfaces produced particularly large changes in subcortical brain volumes and moderate changes in cortical surface area, thickness and hippocampal volumes. The performance of the quality control strategies depended on the morphological measure of interest. Manual quality control strategies yielded the largest reduction in relative unexplained variance. The best performing automated alternatives were those based on Euler numbers and MRIQC scores. The exclusion of outliers based on global morphological measures produced an increase of relative unexplained variance. Manual quality control strategies are the most reliable solution for quality control of brain segmentation and parcellation. However, measures must be taken to prevent the subjectivity associated with these strategies. The detection of inaccurate segmentations based on Euler numbers and MRIQC provide a time efficient and reproducible alternative. The exclusion of outliers based on global morphological estimates must be avoided.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brain segmentation; FreeSurfer; cortical parcellation; manual editing; outlier exclusion; quality control

Year:  2021        PMID: 34000406     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118174

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  6 in total

1.  Small Nucleus Accumbens and Large Cerebral Ventricles in Infants and Toddlers Prior to Receiving Diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Authors:  Tadashi Shiohama; Alpen Ortug; Jose Luis Alatorre Warren; Briana Valli; Jacob Levman; Susan K Faja; Keita Tsujimura; Alika K Maunakea; Emi Takahashi
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 4.861

2.  The genetic architecture of human cortical folding.

Authors:  Dennis van der Meer; Tobias Kaufmann; Alexey A Shadrin; Carolina Makowski; Oleksandr Frei; Daniel Roelfs; Jennifer Monereo-Sánchez; David E J Linden; Jaroslav Rokicki; Dag Alnæs; Christiaan de Leeuw; Wesley K Thompson; Robert Loughnan; Chun Chieh Fan; Lars T Westlye; Ole A Andreassen; Anders M Dale
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 14.136

Review 3.  Quantitative Structural Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analyses: Methodological Overview and Application to Rett Syndrome.

Authors:  Tadashi Shiohama; Keita Tsujimura
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 5.152

4.  Anatomically curated segmentation of human subcortical structures in high resolution magnetic resonance imaging: An open science approach.

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

5.  Outlier detection in multimodal MRI identifies rare individual phenotypes among more than 15,000 brains.

Authors:  Zhiwei Ma; Daniel S Reich; Sarah Dembling; Jeff H Duyn; Alan P Koretsky
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-12-26       Impact factor: 5.399

6.  Charting brain growth and aging at high spatial precision.

Authors:  Christian Beckmann; Andre F Marquand; Saige Rutherford; Charlotte Fraza; Richard Dinga; Seyed Mostafa Kia; Thomas Wolfers; Mariam Zabihi; Pierre Berthet; Amanda Worker; Serena Verdi; Derek Andrews; Laura Km Han; Johanna Mm Bayer; Paola Dazzan; Phillip McGuire; Roel T Mocking; Aart Schene; Chandra Sripada; Ivy F Tso; Elizabeth R Duval; Soo-Eun Chang; Brenda Wjh Penninx; Mary M Heitzeg; S Alexandra Burt; Luke W Hyde; David Amaral; Christine Wu Nordahl; Ole A Andreasssen; Lars T Westlye; Roland Zahn; Henricus G Ruhe
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 8.713

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.