4.7 Article

Cerebral cortical folding analysis with multivariate modeling and testing: Studies on gender differences and neonatal development

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 450-459

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.072

关键词

Cerebral cortical folding; Statistical shape analysis; Gender differences; Neonatal development

资金

  1. NIH [HD042974, HD046159, NS045839, EB06266, DA14129, DA22807, UL1RR024234, K23 NS052380, NS061111, K25 AG027785]
  2. Dana Foundation
  3. June and Steve Wolfson Family Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a novel statistical framework for human cortical folding pattern analysis that relies on a rich multivariate descriptor of folding patterns in a region of interest (ROI). The ROI-based approach avoids problems faced by spatial normalization-based approaches stemming from the deficiency of homologous features between typical human cerebral cortices Unlike typical ROI-based methods that summarize folding by a single number, the proposed descriptor unifies multiple characteristics of surface geometry in a high-dimensional space (hundreds/thousands of dimensions) In this way, the proposed framework couples the reliability of ROI-based analysis with the richness of the novel cortical folding pattern descriptor This paper presents new mathematical insights into the relationship of cortical complexity with intra-cranial volume (ICV) It shows that conventional complexity descriptors implicitly handle ICV differences in different ways, thereby lending different meanings to complexity The paper proposes a new application of a nonparametric permutation-based approach for rigorous statistical hypothesis testing with multivariate cortical descriptors The paper presents two cross-sectional studies applying the proposed framework to study folding differences between genders and in neonates with complex congenital heart disease Both studies lead to novel interesting results (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.

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