The impact of lesion in-painting and registration methods on voxel-based morphometry in detecting regional cerebral gray matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1579-1585

  Ceccarelli, A ^a   Jackson, J S ^a   Tauhid, S ^a   Arora, A ^a   Gorky, J ^a   Dell'Oglio, E ^a   Bakshi, A ^a   Chitnis, T ^a   Khoury, S J ^a   Weiner, H L ^a   Guttmann, C R G ^a   Bakshi, R ^a   Neema, Mohit ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN ATROPHY; BRAIN DAMAGE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFEOMORPHIC ANATOMICAL REGISTRATION THROUGH EXPONENTIATED LIE ALGEBRA; FEMALE; GRAY MATTER; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LESION IN PAINTING; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; SIMULATION; UNIFIED SEGMENTATION MODEL; VOXEL BASED MORPHOMETRY; WHITE MATTER;

ADULT; ATROPHY; BRAIN; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, RELAPSING-REMITTING;

EID: 84866348414     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: 1936959X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3083     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Pirko I, Lucchinetti CF, Sriram S, et al. Gray matter involvement in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2007;68:634-42 (Pubitemid 46667808)
2. Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Voxel-based morphometry: the methods. Neuroimage 2000;11:805-21
3. Ceccarelli A, Rocca MA, Pagani E, et al. A voxel-based morphometry study of grey matter loss in MS patients with different clinical phenotypes. Neuroimage 2008;42:315-22
4. Riccitelli G, Rocca MA, Pagani E, et al. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis is associated to different patterns of gray matter atrophy according to clinical phenotype. Hum Brain Mapp 2011;32:1535-43
5. Bookstein FL. "Voxel-based morphometry" should not be used with imperfectly registered images. Neuroimage 2001;14:1454-62 (Pubitemid 33124193)
6. Fein G, Landman B, Tran H, et al. Statistical parametric mapping of brain morphology: sensitivity is dramatically increased by using brain-extracted images as inputs. Neuroimage 2006;30:1187-95
7. Acosta-Cabronero J, Williams GB, Pereira JM, et al. The impact of skull-stripping and radio-frequency bias correction on grey-matter segmentation for voxel-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2008;39:1654-65
8. Pereira JM, Xiong L, Acosta-Cabronero J, et al. Registration accuracy for VBM studies varies according to region and degenerative disease grouping. Neuroimage 2010;49:2205-15
9. Tardif CL, Collins DL, Pike GB. Sensitivity of voxel-based morphometry analysis to choice of imaging protocol at 3 T. Neuroimage 2009;44:827-38
10. Tardif CL, Collins DL, Pike GB. Regional impact of field strength on voxelbased morphometry results. Hum Brain Mapp 2010;31:943-57
11. Sdika M, Pelletier D. Nonrigid registration of multiple sclerosis brain images using lesion inpainting for morphometry or lesion mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 2009;30:1060-67
12. Chard DT, Jackson JS, Miller DH, et al. Reducing the impact of white matter lesions on automated measures of brain gray and white matter volumes. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:223-28
13. Jackson J, Chard D, Dell'Oglio E, et al. Cerebral white and gray matter MRI segmentation with lesion in-painting in multiple sclerosis: 2010 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology - Toranto, Canada. Neurology 2010;74:A237
14. Ridgway GR, Henley SM, Rohrer JD, et al. Ten simple rules for reporting voxelbased morphometry studies. Neuroimage 2008;40:1429-35
15. Ridgway GR, Omar R, Ourselin S, et al. Issues with threshold masking in voxelbased morphometry of atrophied brains. Neuroimage 2009;44:99-111
16. Henley SM, Ridgway GR, Scahill RI, et al. Pitfalls in the use of voxel-based morphometry as a biomarker: examples from Huntington disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:711-19
17. Ashburner J. A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 2007;38:95-113 (Pubitemid 47440133)
18. Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005;26:839-51 (Pubitemid 40825026)
19. Klein A, Andersson J, Ardekani BA, et al. Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration. Neuroimage 2009;46:786-802
20. Yassa MA, Stark CE. A quantitative evaluation of cross-participant registration techniques for MRI studies of the medial temporal lobe. Neuroimage 2009;44:319-27
21. Bergouignan L, Chupin M, Czechowska Y, et al. Can voxel based morphometry, manual segmentation and automated segmentation equally detect hippocampal volume differences in acute depression? Neuroimage 2009;45:29-37
22. McLaren DG, Kosmatka KJ, Kastman EK, et al. Rhesus macaque brain morphometry: a methodological comparison of voxel-wise approaches. Methods 2010;50:157-65
23. Takahashi R, Ishii K, Miyamoto N, et al. Measurement of gray and white matter atrophy in dementia with Lewy bodies using diffeomorphic anatomic registration through exponentiated lie algebra: a comparison with conventional voxel-based morphometry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1873-78
24. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444-52 (Pubitemid 14237132)
25. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the "McDonald Criteria." Ann Neurol 2005;58:840-46 (Pubitemid 41746873)
26. Deichmann R, Schwarzbauer C, Turner R. Optimisation of the 3D MDEFT sequence for anatomical brain imaging: technical implications at 1.5 and 3 T. Neuroimage 2004;21:757-67 (Pubitemid 38229939)
27. Stankiewicz JM, Glanz BI, Healy BC, et al. Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2011;21:e50-56
28. Bakshi R, Neema M, Healy BC, et al. Predicting clinical progression in multiple sclerosis with the magnetic resonance disease severity scale. Arch Neurol 2008;65:1449-53
29. Tahmasebi AM, Abolmaesumi P, Zheng ZZ, et al. Reducing inter-subject anatomical variation: effect of normalization method on sensitivity of functional magnetic resonance imaging data analysis in auditory cortex and the superior temporal region. Neuroimage 2009;47:1522-31
30. Karacali B, Davatzikos C. Simulation of tissue atrophy using a topology preserving transformation model. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25:649-52
31. Li W, He H, Lu J, et al. Evaluation of multiple voxel-based morphometry approaches and applications in the analysis of white matter changes in temporal lobe epilepsy. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Medical Imaging and Augmented Reality, Bejiing, China. September 19-20, 2010
32. Salmond CH, Ashburner J, Vargha-Khadem F, et al. Distributional assumptions in voxel-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2002;17:1027-30 (Pubitemid 35317035)
33. Sailer M, Fischl B, Salat D, et al. Focal thinning of the cerebral cortex in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2003;126:1734-44 (Pubitemid 36917333)
34. Battaglini M, Giorgio A, Stromillo ML, et al. Voxel-wise assessment of progression of regional brain atrophy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2009;282:55-60
35. Sicotte NL, Kern KC, Giesser BS, et al. Regional hippocampal atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008;131:1134-41 (Pubitemid 351499428)
36. Charil A, Dagher A, Lerch JP, et al. Focal cortical atrophy in multiple sclerosis: relation to lesion load and disability. Neuroimage 2007;34:509-17 (Pubitemid 44827772)
37. Calabrese M, Rinaldi F, Mattisi I, et al. The predictive value of gray matter atrophy in clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology 2011;77:257-63
38. Yeh EA, Weinstock-Guttman B, Ramanathan M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of children and adults with paediatric-onset multiple sclerosis. Brain 2009;132(pt 12):3392-400