scholarly journals Automatic quantification of MS lesions in 3D MRI brain data sets: Validation of INSECT

Author(s):  
Alex Zijdenbos ◽  
Reza Forghani ◽  
Alan Evans
2003 ◽  
Vol 42 (05) ◽  
pp. 215-219
Author(s):  
G. Platsch ◽  
A. Schwarz ◽  
K. Schmiedehausen ◽  
B. Tomandl ◽  
W. Huk ◽  
...  

Summary: Aim: Although the fusion of images from different modalities may improve diagnostic accuracy, it is rarely used in clinical routine work due to logistic problems. Therefore we evaluated performance and time needed for fusing MRI and SPECT images using a semiautomated dedicated software. Patients, material and Method: In 32 patients regional cerebral blood flow was measured using 99mTc ethylcystein dimer (ECD) and the three-headed SPECT camera MultiSPECT 3. MRI scans of the brain were performed using either a 0,2 T Open or a 1,5 T Sonata. Twelve of the MRI data sets were acquired using a 3D-T1w MPRAGE sequence, 20 with a 2D acquisition technique and different echo sequences. Image fusion was performed on a Syngo workstation using an entropy minimizing algorithm by an experienced user of the software. The fusion results were classified. We measured the time needed for the automated fusion procedure and in case of need that for manual realignment after automated, but insufficient fusion. Results: The mean time of the automated fusion procedure was 123 s. It was for the 2D significantly shorter than for the 3D MRI datasets. For four of the 2D data sets and two of the 3D data sets an optimal fit was reached using the automated approach. The remaining 26 data sets required manual correction. The sum of the time required for automated fusion and that needed for manual correction averaged 320 s (50-886 s). Conclusion: The fusion of 3D MRI data sets lasted significantly longer than that of the 2D MRI data. The automated fusion tool delivered in 20% an optimal fit, in 80% manual correction was necessary. Nevertheless, each of the 32 SPECT data sets could be merged in less than 15 min with the corresponding MRI data, which seems acceptable for clinical routine use.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1722 ◽  
pp. 012098
Author(s):  
A A Pravitasari ◽  
N Iriawan ◽  
K Fithriasari ◽  
S W Purnami ◽  
Irhamah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
3D Mri ◽  

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 790-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunther Helms ◽  
Kai Kallenberg ◽  
Peter Dechent
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Wartel ◽  
Patrik Lindenfors ◽  
Johan Lind

AbstractPrimate brains differ in size and architecture. Hypotheses to explain this variation are numerous and many tests have been carried out. However, after body size has been accounted for there is little left to explain. The proposed explanatory variables for the residual variation are many and covary, both with each other and with body size. Further, the data sets used in analyses have been small, especially in light of the many proposed predictors. Here we report the complete list of models that results from exhaustively combining six commonly used predictors of brain and neocortex size. This provides an overview of how the output from standard statistical analyses changes when the inclusion of different predictors is altered. By using both the most commonly tested brain data set and a new, larger data set, we show that the choice of included variables fundamentally changes the conclusions as to what drives primate brain evolution. Our analyses thus reveal why studies have had troubles replicating earlier results and instead have come to such different conclusions. Although our results are somewhat disheartening, they highlight the importance of scientific rigor when trying to answer difficult questions. It is our position that there is currently no empirical justification to highlight any particular hypotheses, of those adaptive hypotheses we have examined here, as the main determinant of primate brain evolution.


NeuroImage ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. S727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex P. Zijdenbos ◽  
Jay N. Giedd ◽  
Jonathan D. Blumenthal ◽  
TomአPaus ◽  
Judith L. Rapoport ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. e0177373
Author(s):  
Woosang Lim ◽  
Jungsoo Lee ◽  
Yongsub Lim ◽  
Doo-Hwan Bae ◽  
Haesun Park ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 1065-1079 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ibrahim ◽  
N. John ◽  
M. Kabuka ◽  
A. Younis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document