4.7 Article

Reducing the Impact of White Matter Lesions on Automated Measures of Brain Gray and White Matter Volumes

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 223-228

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22214

Keywords

MRI; brain; segmentation errors; white matter lesions; error correction; multiple sclerosis

Funding

  1. MS Society of Great Britain
  2. Northern Ireland
  3. Department of Health's National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To develop an automated lesion-filling technique (LEAP; LEsion Automated Preprocessing) that would reduce lesion-associated brain tissue segmentation bias (which is known to affect automated brain gray [GM] and white matter [WM] tissue segmentations in people who have multiple sclerosis), and a WM lesion simulation tool with which to Lest it. Materials and Methods: Simulated lesions with differing volumes and signal intensities were added to volumetric brain images from three healthy subjects and then automatically filled with values approximating normal WM. We tested the effects of simulated lesions and lesion-filling correction with LEAP on SPM-derived tissue volume estimates. Results: GM and WM tissue volume estimates were affected by the presence of WM lesions. With simulated lesion volumes of 15 mL at 70% of normal WM intensity, the effect was to increase GM fractional (relative to intracranial) volumes by approximate to 2.3%, and reduce WM fractions by approximate to 3.6%. Lesion filling reduced these errors to Conclusion: The effect of WM lesions on automated GM and WM volume measures may be considerable and thereby obscure real disease-mediated volume changes. Lesion filling with values approximating normal WM enables more accurate GM and WM volume measures and should be applicable to structural scans independently of the software used for the segmentation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available