4.7 Article

Early registration of diffusion tensor images for group tractography of dystonia patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 67-75

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23806

关键词

MRI; DTI; dystonia; group tractography; registration

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1 NS 072514]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To make a group comparison of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) results of dystonia patients and controls to reveal occult pathology. We propose using an early registration method that produces sharper group images and enables us to do group tractography. Materials and Methods: Twelve dystonia patients manifesting the disease, seven nonmanifesting dystonia mutation carriers (DYT1 and DYT6 gene mutations), and eight age-matched normal control subjects were imaged for a previous study. Early and late registration methods for DTI were compared. An early registration technique for a super set was proposed, in which the diffusion-weighted images were registered to a template, gradient vectors were reoriented for each subject, and they were combined into a super set before tensor calculation. The super set included images from all subjects and was useful for group comparisons. We used results obtained from the early registration of a super set for group analysis of tracts using the deterministic fiber-tracking technique. Results: In dystonia mutation carriers, we detected fewer fibers in the cerebello-thalamo-cortical pathways. This result agrees well with the findings of a previous study that utilized a probabilistic tractography method and demonstrated that gene carriers have less fiber tracts in the disease-involved pathway. Conclusion: This analysis visualized group level white matter fractional anisotropy and tract differences between dystonia patients and controls, and can be useful in understanding the pathophysiology of other nonfocal white matter diseases. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:6775. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据