4.7 Article

Methodological considerations for measuring rates of brain atrophy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 16-24

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10325

Keywords

serial MRI; Alzheimer's disease; brain atrophy; image processing; dementia

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG11378, U01 AG006786-23, R01 AG011378-14, AG16574, P50 AG016574, P50 AG016574-070004, R01 AG011378, AG06786, U01 AG006786] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To systematically compare two techniques for measuring brain atrophy rates from serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. Materials and Methods: Using the separation in atrophy rate between cohorts of cognitively normal elderly subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) as the gold standard, we evaluated 1) different methods of computing volume change; 2) different methods for steps in image preprocessing-intensity normalization, alignment mask used, and bias field correction; 3) the effect of MRI acquisition hardware changes; and 4) the sensitivity of the method to variations in initial manual volume editing. For each of the preceding evaluations, measurements of whole-brain and ventricular atrophy rates were calculated. Results: In general, greater separation between the clinical groups was seen with ventricular rather than whole-brain measures. Surprisingly, neither the use of bias field correction nor a major hardware change between the scan pairs affected group separation. Conclusion: Atrophy rate measurements from serial MRI are candidates for use as surrogate markers of disease progression in AD and other dementing neurodegenerative disorders. The final method has excellent precision and accurately captures the expected biology of AD-arguably the two most important features if this technique is to be used as a biomarker of disease progression.

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