Sandra M Hurtado Rúa1, Ulrike W Kaunzner2, Sneha Pandya3, Elizabeth Sweeney4, Ceren Tozlu3, Amy Kuceyeski3,5, Thanh D Nguyen3, Susan A Gauthier2,3,5. 1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York, USA. 5. Feil Family Brain and Mind Institute, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides insight into various pathological processes in multiple sclerosis (MS) and may provide insight into patterns of damage among patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if MRI features have clinical discriminative power among a cohort of MS patients. METHODS: Ninety-six relapsing remitting and seven progressive MS patients underwent myelin water fraction (MWF) imaging and conventional MRI for cortical thickness and thalamic volume. Patients were clustered based on lesion level MRI features using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm based on principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: One hundred and three patients with 1689 MS lesions were analyzed. PCA on MRI features demonstrated that lesion MWF and volume distributions (characterized by 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles) accounted for 87% of the total variability based on four principal components. The best hierarchical cluster confirmed two distinct patient clusters. The clustering features in order of importance were lesion median MWF, MWF 25th, MWF 75th, volume 75th percentiles, median individual lesion volume, total lesion volume, cortical thickness, and thalamic volume (all p values <0.01368). The clusters were associated with patient Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) (n = 103, p = 0.0338) at baseline and at 5 years (n = 72, p = 0.0337). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that individual MRI features can identify two patient clusters driven by lesion-based values, and our unique approach is an analysis blinded to clinical variables. The two distinct clusters exhibit MWF differences, most likely representing individual remyelination capabilities among different patient groups. These findings support the concept of patient-specific pathophysiological processes and may guide future therapeutic approaches.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides insight into various pathological processes in multiple sclerosis (MS) and may provide insight into patterns of damage among patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if MRI features have clinical discriminative power among a cohort of MS patients. METHODS: Ninety-six relapsing remitting and seven progressive MS patients underwent myelin water fraction (MWF) imaging and conventional MRI for cortical thickness and thalamic volume. Patients were clustered based on lesion level MRI features using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm based on principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: One hundred and three patients with 1689 MS lesions were analyzed. PCA on MRI features demonstrated that lesion MWF and volume distributions (characterized by 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles) accounted for 87% of the total variability based on four principal components. The best hierarchical cluster confirmed two distinct patient clusters. The clustering features in order of importance were lesion median MWF, MWF 25th, MWF 75th, volume 75th percentiles, median individual lesion volume, total lesion volume, cortical thickness, and thalamic volume (all p values <0.01368). The clusters were associated with patient Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) (n = 103, p = 0.0338) at baseline and at 5 years (n = 72, p = 0.0337). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that individual MRI features can identify two patient clusters driven by lesion-based values, and our unique approach is an analysis blinded to clinical variables. The two distinct clusters exhibit MWF differences, most likely representing individual remyelination capabilities among different patient groups. These findings support the concept of patient-specific pathophysiological processes and may guide future therapeutic approaches.
Authors: Irene M Vavasour; Sophie C Huijskens; David Kb Li; Anthony L Traboulsee; Burkhard Mädler; Shannon H Kolind; Alexander Rauscher; Gr Wayne Moore; Alex L MacKay; Cornelia Laule Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Wolfgang Brück; Declan Chard; Franz Fazekas; Jeroen J G Geurts; Christian Enzinger; Simon Hametner; Tanja Kuhlmann; Paolo Preziosa; Àlex Rovira; Klaus Schmierer; Christine Stadelmann; Maria A Rocca Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Ajai Tripathi; Christina Volsko; Jessie P Garcia; Eneritz Agirre; Kevin C Allan; Paul J Tesar; Bruce D Trapp; Goncalo Castelo-Branco; Fraser J Sim; Ranjan Dutta Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Sneha Pandya; Ulrike W Kaunzner; Sandra M Hurtado Rúa; Nancy Nealon; Jai Perumal; Timothy Vartanian; Thanh D Nguyen; Susan A Gauthier Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Cheryl R McCreary; Thorarin A Bjarnason; Viktor Skihar; J Ross Mitchell; V Wee Yong; Jeff F Dunn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Stephen P J Fancy; Mark R Kotter; Emily P Harrington; Jeffrey K Huang; Chao Zhao; David H Rowitch; Robin J M Franklin Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Christopher C Hemond; Brian C Healy; Shahamat Tauhid; Maria A Mazzola; Francisco J Quintana; Roopali Gandhi; Howard L Weiner; Rohit Bakshi Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2019-02-14
Authors: Piet M Bouman; Martijn D Steenwijk; Petra J W Pouwels; Menno M Schoonheim; Frederik Barkhof; Laura E Jonkman; Jeroen J G Geurts Journal: Brain Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 13.501