1
|
Rebsamen M, McKinley R, Radojewski P, Pistor M, Friedli C, Hoepner R, Salmen A, Chan A, Reyes M, Wagner F, Wiest R, Rummel C. Reliable brain morphometry from contrast-enhanced T1w-MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Hum Brain Mapp 2022; 44:970-979. [PMID: 36250711 PMCID: PMC9875932 DOI: 10.1002/hbm.26117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Revised: 08/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Brain morphometry is usually based on non-enhanced (pre-contrast) T1-weighted MRI. However, such dedicated protocols are sometimes missing in clinical examinations. Instead, an image with a contrast agent is often available. Existing tools such as FreeSurfer yield unreliable results when applied to contrast-enhanced (CE) images. Consequently, these acquisitions are excluded from retrospective morphometry studies, which reduces the sample size. We hypothesize that deep learning (DL)-based morphometry methods can extract morphometric measures also from contrast-enhanced MRI. We have extended DL+DiReCT to cope with contrast-enhanced MRI. Training data for our DL-based model were enriched with non-enhanced and CE image pairs from the same session. The segmentations were derived with FreeSurfer from the non-enhanced image and used as ground truth for the coregistered CE image. A longitudinal dataset of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), comprising relapsing remitting (RRMS) and primary progressive (PPMS) subgroups, was used for the evaluation. Global and regional cortical thickness derived from non-enhanced and CE images were contrasted to results from FreeSurfer. Correlation coefficients of global mean cortical thickness between non-enhanced and CE images were significantly larger with DL+DiReCT (r = 0.92) than with FreeSurfer (r = 0.75). When comparing the longitudinal atrophy rates between the two MS subgroups, the effect sizes between PPMS and RRMS were higher with DL+DiReCT both for non-enhanced (d = -0.304) and CE images (d = -0.169) than for FreeSurfer (non-enhanced d = -0.111, CE d = 0.085). In conclusion, brain morphometry can be derived reliably from contrast-enhanced MRI using DL-based morphometry tools, making additional cases available for analysis and potential future diagnostic morphometry tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Rebsamen
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland,Graduate School for Cellular and Biomedical SciencesUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Richard McKinley
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland
| | - Piotr Radojewski
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland,Swiss Institute for Translational and Entrepreneurial MedicineBernSwitzerland
| | - Maximilian Pistor
- Department of NeurologyInselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Christoph Friedli
- Department of NeurologyInselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Robert Hoepner
- Department of NeurologyInselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Anke Salmen
- Department of NeurologyInselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Andrew Chan
- Department of NeurologyInselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Mauricio Reyes
- ARTORG Center for Biomedical ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
| | - Franca Wagner
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland
| | - Roland Wiest
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland,Swiss Institute for Translational and Entrepreneurial MedicineBernSwitzerland
| | - Christian Rummel
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mercier MR, Dubarry AS, Tadel F, Avanzini P, Axmacher N, Cellier D, Vecchio MD, Hamilton LS, Hermes D, Kahana MJ, Knight RT, Llorens A, Megevand P, Melloni L, Miller KJ, Piai V, Puce A, Ramsey NF, Schwiedrzik CM, Smith SE, Stolk A, Swann NC, Vansteensel MJ, Voytek B, Wang L, Lachaux JP, Oostenveld R. Advances in human intracranial electroencephalography research, guidelines and good practices. Neuroimage 2022; 260:119438. [PMID: 35792291 PMCID: PMC10190110 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2021] [Revised: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 06/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Since the second-half of the twentieth century, intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG), including both electrocorticography (ECoG) and stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG), has provided an intimate view into the human brain. At the interface between fundamental research and the clinic, iEEG provides both high temporal resolution and high spatial specificity but comes with constraints, such as the individual's tailored sparsity of electrode sampling. Over the years, researchers in neuroscience developed their practices to make the most of the iEEG approach. Here we offer a critical review of iEEG research practices in a didactic framework for newcomers, as well addressing issues encountered by proficient researchers. The scope is threefold: (i) review common practices in iEEG research, (ii) suggest potential guidelines for working with iEEG data and answer frequently asked questions based on the most widespread practices, and (iii) based on current neurophysiological knowledge and methodologies, pave the way to good practice standards in iEEG research. The organization of this paper follows the steps of iEEG data processing. The first section contextualizes iEEG data collection. The second section focuses on localization of intracranial electrodes. The third section highlights the main pre-processing steps. The fourth section presents iEEG signal analysis methods. The fifth section discusses statistical approaches. The sixth section draws some unique perspectives on iEEG research. Finally, to ensure a consistent nomenclature throughout the manuscript and to align with other guidelines, e.g., Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) and the OHBM Committee on Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing (COBIDAS), we provide a glossary to disambiguate terms related to iEEG research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuel R Mercier
- INSERM, INS, Institut de Neurosciences des Systèmes, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.
| | | | - François Tadel
- Signal & Image Processing Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA United States of America
| | - Pietro Avanzini
- Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council of Italy, Parma, Italy
| | - Nikolai Axmacher
- Department of Neuropsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, Bochum 44801, Germany; State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning and IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, 19 Xinjiekou Outer St, Beijing 100875, China
| | - Dillan Cellier
- Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, United States of America
| | - Maria Del Vecchio
- Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council of Italy, Parma, Italy
| | - Liberty S Hamilton
- Department of Neurology, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States of America; Institute for Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States of America; Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States of America
| | - Dora Hermes
- Department of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Michael J Kahana
- Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - Robert T Knight
- Department of Psychology and the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States of America
| | - Anais Llorens
- Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States of America
| | - Pierre Megevand
- Department of Clinical neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Lucia Melloni
- Department of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, Frankfurt am Main 60322, Germany; Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 145 East 32nd Street, Room 828, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
| | - Kai J Miller
- Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Vitória Piai
- Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Radboudumc, Donders Centre for Medical Neuroscience, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Aina Puce
- Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Programs in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States of America
| | - Nick F Ramsey
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, UMC Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Caspar M Schwiedrzik
- Neural Circuits and Cognition Lab, European Neuroscience Institute Göttingen - A Joint Initiative of the University Medical Center Göttingen and the Max Planck Society, Göttingen, Germany; Perception and Plasticity Group, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Sydney E Smith
- Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, United States of America
| | - Arjen Stolk
- Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America
| | - Nicole C Swann
- University of Oregon in the Department of Human Physiology, United States of America
| | - Mariska J Vansteensel
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, UMC Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Bradley Voytek
- Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, United States of America; Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, United States of America; Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, United States of America; Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, United States of America
| | - Liang Wang
- CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jean-Philippe Lachaux
- Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, EDUWELL Team, INSERM UMRS 1028, CNRS UMR 5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon F-69000, France
| | - Robert Oostenveld
- Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; NatMEG, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
The effect of gadolinium-based contrast-agents on automated brain atrophy measurements by FreeSurfer in patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:3576-3587. [PMID: 34978580 PMCID: PMC9038813 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08405-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Revised: 09/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether reliable brain atrophy measures can be obtained from post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using FreeSurfer. METHODS Twenty-two patients with MS were included, in which 3D T1-weighted MR images were obtained during the same scanner visit, with the same acquisition protocol, before and after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs). Two FreeSurfer versions (v.6.0.1 and v.7.1.1.) were applied to calculate grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) volumes and global and regional cortical thickness. The consistency between measures obtained in pre- and post-contrast images was assessed by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), the difference was investigated by paired t-tests, and the mean percentage increase or decrease was calculated for total WM and GM matter volume, total deep GM and thalamus volume, and mean cortical thickness. RESULTS Good to excellent reliability was found between all investigated measures, with ICC ranging from 0.926 to 0.996, all p values < 0.001. GM volumes and cortical thickness measurements were significantly higher in post-contrast images by 3.1 to 17.4%, while total WM volume decreased significantly by 1.7% (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSION The consistency between values obtained from pre- and post-contrast images was excellent, suggesting it may be possible to extract reliable brain atrophy measurements from T1-weighted images acquired after administration of GBCAs, using FreeSurfer. However, absolute values were systematically different between pre- and post-contrast images, meaning that such images should not be compared directly. Potential systematic effects, possibly dependent on GBCA dose or the delay time after contrast injection, should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical trials.gov. identifier: NCT00360906. KEY POINTS • The influence of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) on atrophy measurements is still largely unknown and challenges the use of a considerable source of historical and prospective real-world data. • In 22 patients with multiple sclerosis, the consistency between brain atrophy measurements obtained from pre- and post-contrast images was excellent, suggesting it may be possible to extract reliable atrophy measurements in T1-weighted images acquired after administration of GBCAs, using FreeSurfer. • Absolute values were systematically different between pre- and post-contrast images, meaning that such images should not be compared directly, and measurements extracted from certain regions (e.g., the temporal pole) should be interpreted with caution.
Collapse
|