1
|
Huszar IN, Pallebage-Gamarallage M, Bangerter-Christensen S, Brooks H, Fitzgibbon S, Foxley S, Hiemstra M, Howard AFD, Jbabdi S, Kor DZL, Leonte A, Mollink J, Smart A, Tendler BC, Turner MR, Ansorge O, Miller KL, Jenkinson M. Tensor image registration library: Deformable registration of stand-alone histology images to whole-brain post-mortem MRI data. Neuroimage 2023; 265:119792. [PMID: 36509214 PMCID: PMC10933796 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2022] [Revised: 10/26/2022] [Accepted: 12/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate registration between microscopy and MRI data is necessary for validating imaging biomarkers against neuropathology, and to disentangle complex signal dependencies in microstructural MRI. Existing registration methods often rely on serial histological sampling or significant manual input, providing limited scope to work with a large number of stand-alone histology sections. Here we present a customisable pipeline to assist the registration of stand-alone histology sections to whole-brain MRI data. METHODS Our pipeline registers stained histology sections to whole-brain post-mortem MRI in 4 stages, with the help of two photographic intermediaries: a block face image (to undistort histology sections) and coronal brain slab photographs (to insert them into MRI space). Each registration stage is implemented as a configurable stand-alone Python script using our novel platform, Tensor Image Registration Library (TIRL), which provides flexibility for wider adaptation. We report our experience of registering 87 PLP-stained histology sections from 14 subjects and perform various experiments to assess the accuracy and robustness of each stage of the pipeline. RESULTS All 87 histology sections were successfully registered to MRI. Histology-to-block registration (Stage 1) achieved 0.2-0.4 mm accuracy, better than commonly used existing methods. Block-to-slice matching (Stage 2) showed great robustness in automatically identifying and inserting small tissue blocks into whole brain slices with 0.2 mm accuracy. Simulations demonstrated sub-voxel level accuracy (0.13 mm) of the slice-to-volume registration (Stage 3) algorithm, which was observed in over 200 actual brain slice registrations, compensating 3D slice deformations up to 6.5 mm. Stage 4 combined the previous stages and generated refined pixelwise aligned multi-modal histology-MRI stacks. CONCLUSIONS Our open-source pipeline provides robust automation tools for registering stand-alone histology sections to MRI data with sub-voxel level precision, and the underlying framework makes it readily adaptable to a diverse range of microscopy-MRI studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Istvan N Huszar
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | | | - Sarah Bangerter-Christensen
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
| | - Hannah Brooks
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sean Fitzgibbon
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sean Foxley
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Marlies Hiemstra
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Anatomy, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Amy F D Howard
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Saad Jbabdi
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Daniel Z L Kor
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anna Leonte
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Neuroscience, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Mollink
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Anatomy, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Adele Smart
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Benjamin C Tendler
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Martin R Turner
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Olaf Ansorge
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Karla L Miller
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mark Jenkinson
- Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Regi SS, Livingstone RS, Kandagaddala M, Poonnoose P, Gibikote S, Keshava SN, Srivastava A. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of blood: An ex-vivo study. Haemophilia 2021; 27:488-493. [PMID: 33780101 DOI: 10.1111/hae.14303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Revised: 02/16/2021] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Early detection of bleeding into a joint is crucial in patients with haemophilia. This study was designed to evaluate the sensitivity of ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect the presence of blood in small concentrations in a simulated model to mimic joint bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS Different concentrations of blood in plasma, varying from 0.1% to 45%, were collected in 10-ml plastic syringes and imaged using 12 and 18 MHz USG transducers and with 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners, at different intervals of time following dilution. The images were scored for the presence of blood by four experienced radiologists who were blinded to the concentration of blood. RESULTS Within the first 2 h, the 18 MHz transducer was able to detect blood consistently up to 0.5%, whereas the 12 MHz transducer could consistently identify blood up to 1.4%. After the first 12 h, both transducers were able to detect blood up to 0.5% concentration. However, at concentrations below 0.5%, there was discordance in the ability to detect blood, with both transducers. There was no correlation between the signal intensities of MRI images and concentration of blood, at different time intervals, irrespective of the magnetic field strength. CONCLUSIONS Detection of blood using the USG is dependent on variables such as the concentration of blood, frequency of the transducer used and timing of the imaging. As the concentration of blood decreases below 0.5%, the discordance between the observers increases, implying that the detection limit of USG affects its reliability at lower concentrations of blood. Caution is urged while interpreting USG imaging studies for the detection of blood in symptomatic joints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Soumya Susan Regi
- Division of Clinical Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | | | | | - Pradeep Poonnoose
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | - Sridhar Gibikote
- Division of Clinical Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | | | - Alok Srivastava
- Department of Hematology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
De Barros A, Arribarat G, Combis J, Chaynes P, Péran P. Matching ex vivo MRI With Iron Histology: Pearls and Pitfalls. Front Neuroanat 2019; 13:68. [PMID: 31333421 PMCID: PMC6616088 DOI: 10.3389/fnana.2019.00068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2019] [Accepted: 06/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Iron levels in the brain can be estimated using newly developed specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences. This technique has several applications, especially in neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease. Coupling ex vivo MRI with histology allows neuroscientists to better understand what they see in the images. Iron is one of the most extensively studied elements, both by MRI and using histological or physical techniques. Researchers were initially only able to make visual comparisons between MRI images and different types of iron staining, but the emergence of specific MRI sequences like R2* or quantitative susceptibility mapping meant that quantification became possible, requiring correlations with physical techniques. Today, with advances in MRI and image post-processing, it is possible to look for MRI/histology correlations by matching the two sorts of images. For the result to be acceptable, the choice of methodology is crucial, as there are hidden pitfalls every step of the way. In order to review the advantages and limitations of ex vivo MRI correlation with iron-based histology, we reviewed all the relevant articles dealing with the topic in humans. We provide separate assessments of qualitative and quantitative studies, and after summarizing the significant results, we emphasize all the pitfalls that may be encountered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amaury De Barros
- Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, University of Toulouse Paul Sabatier-INSERM, Toulouse, France
- Department of Anatomy, Toulouse Faculty of Medicine, Toulouse, France
| | - Germain Arribarat
- Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, University of Toulouse Paul Sabatier-INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Jeanne Combis
- Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, University of Toulouse Paul Sabatier-INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Patrick Chaynes
- Department of Anatomy, Toulouse Faculty of Medicine, Toulouse, France
| | - Patrice Péran
- Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, University of Toulouse Paul Sabatier-INSERM, Toulouse, France
| |
Collapse
|