MRIQC: Advancing the automatic prediction of image quality in MRI from unseen sites

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 9, 2017, Pages

  Esteban, Oscar ^a   Birman, Daniel ^a   Schaer, Marie ^b   Koyejo, Oluwasanmi O ^c   Poldrack, Russell A ^a   Gorgolewski, Krzysztof J ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Switzerland)

^c University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CLASSIFIER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS VALIDATION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION SERVICE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PLANT LEAF; PREDICTION; VALIDATION PROCESS; BRAIN; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROCEDURES; SOFTWARE;

BRAIN; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEUROIMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; SOFTWARE;

EID: 85031689321     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184661     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. NeuroImage. 2012; 59(3):2142-2154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018 PMID: 22019881
2. Yendiki A, Koldewyn K, Kakunoori S, Kanwisher N, Fischl B. Spurious group differences due to head motion in a diffusion MRI study. NeuroImage. 2014; 88:79-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.027 PMID: 24269273
3. Reuter M, Tisdall MD, Qureshi A, Buckner RL, van der Kouwe AJW, Fischl B. Head motion during MRI acquisition reduces gray matter volume and thickness estimates. NeuroImage. 2015; 107:107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.006 PMID: 25498430
4. Alexander-Bloch A, Clasen L, Stockman M, Ronan L, Lalonde F, Giedd J, et al. Subtle in-scanner motion biases automated measurement of brain anatomy from in vivo MRI. Human Brain Mapping. 2016; 37(7):2385-2397. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23180 PMID: 27004471
5. Kaufman L, Kramer DM, Crooks LE, Ortendahl DA. Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology. 1989; 173(1):265-267. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.173.1.2781018 PMID: 2781018
6. Gardner EA, Ellis JH, Hyde RJ, Aisen AM, Quint DJ, Carson PL. Detection of degradation of magnetic resonance (MR) images: Comparison of an automated MR image-quality analysis system with trained human observers. Academic Radiology. 1995; 2(4):277-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(05) 80184-9 PMID: 9419562
7. Van Essen DC, Ugurbil K, Auerbach E, Barch D, Behrens TEJ, Bucholz R, et al. The Human Connectome Project: A data acquisition perspective. NeuroImage. 2012; 62(4):2222-2231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.018 PMID: 22366334
8. Di Martino A, Yan CG, Li Q, Denio E, Castellanos FX, Alaerts K, et al. The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism. Molecular Psychiatry. 2014; 19(6):659-667. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.78 PMID: 23774715
9. Miller KL, Alfaro-Almagro F, Bangerter NK, Thomas DL, Yacoub E, Xu J, et al. Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. Nature Neuroscience. 2016; 19:1523-1536. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4393 PMID: 27643430
10. Price RR, Axel L, Morgan T, Newman R, Perman W, Schneiders N, et al. Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: Report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. Medical Physics. 1990; 17(2):287-295. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596566 PMID: 2333055
11. Woodard JP, Carley-Spencer MP. No-Reference image quality metrics for structural MRI. Neuroinformatics. 2006; 4(3):243-262. https://doi.org/10.1385/NI:4:3:243 PMID: 16943630
12. Mortamet B, Bernstein MA, Jack CR, Gunter JL, Ward C, Britson PJ, et al. Automatic quality assessment in structural brain magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2009; 62 (2):365-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21992 PMID: 19526493
13. Alfaro-Almagro F, Jenkinson M, Bangerter N, Andersson J, Griffanti L, Douaud G, et al. UK Biobank Brain Imaging: Automated Processing Pipeline and Quality Control for 100,000 subjects. In: Organization for Human Brain Mapping. Geneve, Switzerland; 2016. p. 1877.
14. Shehzad Z, Giavasis S, Li Q, Benhajali Y, Yan C, Yang Z, et al. The Preprocessed Connectomes Project Quality Assessment Protocol-a resource for measuring the quality of MRI data. In: Front. Neurosci. Conf. Neuroinformatics. Cairns, Australia; 2015.
15. Pizarro RA, Cheng X, Barnett A, Lemaitre H, Verchinski BA, Goldman AL, et al. Automated Quality Assessment of Structural Magnetic Resonance Brain Images Based on a Supervised Machine Learning Algorithm. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. 2016; 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2016.00052 PMID: 28066227
16. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the Kappa statistic. Family Medicine. 2005; 37(5):360-363. PMID: 15883903
17. Fortin JP, Cullen N, Sheline YI, Taylor WD, Aselcioglu I, Adams P, et al. Harmonization of cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. bioRxiv. 2017; p. 148502.
18. Leek JT, Scharpf RB, Bravo HC, Simcha D, Langmead B, Johnson WE, et al. Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2010; 11 (10):733-739. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2825 PMID: 20838408
19. Ripley BD. Pattern recognition and neural networks. 7th ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
20. Poldrack RA, Congdon E, Triplett W, Gorgolewski KJ, Karlsgodt KH, Mumford JA, et al. A phenomewide examination of neural and cognitive function. Scientific Data. 2016; 3:160110. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.110 PMID: 27922632
21. Fischl B. FreeSurfer. NeuroImage. 2012; 62(2):774-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021 PMID: 22248573
22. Backhausen LL, Herting MM, Buse J, Roessner V, Smolka MN, Vetter NC. Quality Control of Structural MRI Images Applied Using FreeSurfer-A Hands-On Workflow to Rate Motion Artifacts. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2016; 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00558 PMID: 27999528
23. Gorgolewski KJ, Esteban O, Burns C, Ziegler E, Pinsard B, Madison C, et al. Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in Python. Zenodo [Software]. 2016;
24. Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, Woolrich MW, Smith SM. FSL. NeuroImage. 2012; 62 (2):782-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015 PMID: 21979382
25. Avants BB, Song G, Duda JT, Johnson HJ, Tustison N. ANTs: Advanced Normalization Tools; 2013. Available from: http://www.picsl.upenn.edu/ANTS/.
26. Cox RW, Hyde JS. Software tools for analysis and visualization of fMRI data. NMR in Biomedicine. 1997; 10(4-5):171-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1492(199706/08)10:4/5%3C171::AIDNBM453%3E3.0.CO;2-L PMID: 9430344
27. Gorgolewski KJ, Auer T, Calhoun VD, Craddock RC, Das S, Duff EP, et al. The brain imaging data structure, a format for organizing and describing outputs of neuroimaging experiments. Scientific Data. 2016; 3:160044. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.44 PMID: 27326542
28. Gorgolewski KJ, Alfaro-Almagro F, Auer T, Bellec P, Capotă M, Chakravarty MM, et al. BIDS apps: Improving ease of use, accessibility, and reproducibility of neuroimaging data analysis methods. PLOS Computational Biology. 2017; 13(3):e1005209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005209 PMID: 28278228
29. Kurtzer GM, Sochat V, Bauer MW. Singularity: Scientific containers for mobility of compute. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(5):e0177459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177459 PMID: 28494014
30. Ganzetti M, Wenderoth N, Mantini D. Intensity Inhomogeneity Correction of Structural MR Images: A Data-Driven Approach to Define Input Algorithm Parameters. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. 2016; p. 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2016.00010 PMID: 27014050
31. Magnotta VA, Friedman L, Birn F. Measurement of Signal-to-Noise and Contrast-to-Noise in the fBIRN Multicenter Imaging Study. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2006; 19(2):140-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10278-006-0264-x PMID: 16598643
32. Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: Influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2007; 26(2):375-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20969 PMID: 17622966
33. Atkinson D, Hill DLG, Stoyle PNR, Summers PE, Keevil SF. Automatic correction of motion artifacts in magnetic resonance images using an entropy focus criterion. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 1997; 16(6):903-910. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.650886 PMID: 9533590
34. Friedman L, Stern H, Brown GG, Mathalon DH, Turner J, Glover GH, et al. Test-retest and between-site reliability in a multicenter fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping. 2008; 29(8):958-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20440 PMID: 17636563
35. Fonov V, Evans A, McKinstry R, Almli C, Collins D. Unbiased nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood. NeuroImage. 2009; 47, Supplement 1:S102. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1053-8119(09)70884-5
36. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011; 12:2825-2830.
37. Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Machine Learning. 1995; 20(3):273-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018
38. Breiman L. Random Forests. Machine Learning. 2001; 45(1):5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
39. Geurts P, Ernst D, Wehenkel L. Extremely randomized trees. Machine Learning. 2006; 63(1):3-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1
40. Littlestone N. Learning quickly when irrelevant attributes abound: A new linear-threshold algorithm. In: 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science; 1987. p. 68-77.
41. Abraham A, Milham MP, Di Martino A, Craddock RC, Samaras D, Thirion B, et al. Deriving reproducible biomarkers from multi-site resting-state data: An Autism-based example. NeuroImage. 2017; 147:736-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.045 PMID: 27865923
42. Ojala M, Garriga GC. Permutation Tests for Studying Classifier Performance. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2010; 11(Jun):1833-1863.
43. Gedamu EL, Collins Dl, Arnold DL. Automated quality control of brain MR images. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2008; 28(2):308-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21434 PMID: 18666143
44. Snoek J, Larochelle H, Adams RP. Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 25. Lake Tahoe, Nevada, USA; 2012. p. 2951-2959.
45. Bengio Y, Delalleau O, Roux NL. A discussion of semi-supervised learning and transductive. Semi-Supervised Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts, US: MIT Press; 2006.
46. Poldrack RA, Barch DM, Mitchell J, Wager T, Wagner AD, Devlin JT, et al. Toward open sharing of task-based fMRI data: the OpenfMRI project. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. 2013; 7:12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2013.00012 PMID: 23847528
47. Gorgolewski K, Esteban O, Schaefer G, Wandell B, Poldrack R. OpenNeuro-a free online platform for sharing and analysis of neuroimaging data. In: Organization for Human Brain Mapping. Vancouver, Canada; 2017. p. 1677.