1
|
Chen Y, Zhang C, Xue T, Song Y, Makris N, Rathi Y, Cai W, Zhang F, O'Donnell LJ. Deep fiber clustering: Anatomically informed fiber clustering with self-supervised deep learning for fast and effective tractography parcellation. Neuroimage 2023; 273:120086. [PMID: 37019346 PMCID: PMC10958986 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120086] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/02/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2023] Open
Abstract
White matter fiber clustering is an important strategy for white matter parcellation, which enables quantitative analysis of brain connections in health and disease. In combination with expert neuroanatomical labeling, data-driven white matter fiber clustering is a powerful tool for creating atlases that can model white matter anatomy across individuals. While widely used fiber clustering approaches have shown good performance using classical unsupervised machine learning techniques, recent advances in deep learning reveal a promising direction toward fast and effective fiber clustering. In this work, we propose a novel deep learning framework for white matter fiber clustering, Deep Fiber Clustering (DFC), which solves the unsupervised clustering problem as a self-supervised learning task with a domain-specific pretext task to predict pairwise fiber distances. This process learns a high-dimensional embedding feature representation for each fiber, regardless of the order of fiber points reconstructed during tractography. We design a novel network architecture that represents input fibers as point clouds and allows the incorporation of additional sources of input information from gray matter parcellation. Thus, DFC makes use of combined information about white matter fiber geometry and gray matter anatomy to improve the anatomical coherence of fiber clusters. In addition, DFC conducts outlier removal naturally by rejecting fibers with low cluster assignment probability. We evaluate DFC on three independently acquired cohorts, including data from 220 individuals across genders, ages (young and elderly adults), and different health conditions (healthy control and multiple neuropsychiatric disorders). We compare DFC to several state-of-the-art white matter fiber clustering algorithms. Experimental results demonstrate superior performance of DFC in terms of cluster compactness, generalization ability, anatomical coherence, and computational efficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuqian Chen
- Harvard Medical School, MA, USA; The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Tengfei Xue
- Harvard Medical School, MA, USA; The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Yang Song
- The University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhang F, Daducci A, He Y, Schiavi S, Seguin C, Smith RE, Yeh CH, Zhao T, O'Donnell LJ. Quantitative mapping of the brain's structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: A review. Neuroimage 2022; 249:118870. [PMID: 34979249 PMCID: PMC9257891 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 12/03/2021] [Accepted: 12/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) tractography is an advanced imaging technique that enables in vivo reconstruction of the brain's white matter connections at macro scale. It provides an important tool for quantitative mapping of the brain's structural connectivity using measures of connectivity or tissue microstructure. Over the last two decades, the study of brain connectivity using dMRI tractography has played a prominent role in the neuroimaging research landscape. In this paper, we provide a high-level overview of how tractography is used to enable quantitative analysis of the brain's structural connectivity in health and disease. We focus on two types of quantitative analyses of tractography, including: 1) tract-specific analysis that refers to research that is typically hypothesis-driven and studies particular anatomical fiber tracts, and 2) connectome-based analysis that refers to research that is more data-driven and generally studies the structural connectivity of the entire brain. We first provide a review of methodology involved in three main processing steps that are common across most approaches for quantitative analysis of tractography, including methods for tractography correction, segmentation and quantification. For each step, we aim to describe methodological choices, their popularity, and potential pros and cons. We then review studies that have used quantitative tractography approaches to study the brain's white matter, focusing on applications in neurodevelopment, aging, neurological disorders, mental disorders, and neurosurgery. We conclude that, while there have been considerable advancements in methodological technologies and breadth of applications, there nevertheless remains no consensus about the "best" methodology in quantitative analysis of tractography, and researchers should remain cautious when interpreting results in research and clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fan Zhang
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
| | | | - Yong He
- State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing, China
| | - Simona Schiavi
- Department of Computer Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Caio Seguin
- Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Sydney, School of Biomedical Engineering, Sydney, Australia
| | - Robert E Smith
- The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia; Florey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Chun-Hung Yeh
- Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Tengda Zhao
- State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schilling KG, Tax CM, Rheault F, Hansen C, Yang Q, Yeh FC, Cai L, Anderson AW, Landman BA. Fiber tractography bundle segmentation depends on scanner effects, vendor effects, acquisition resolution, diffusion sampling scheme, diffusion sensitization, and bundle segmentation workflow. Neuroimage 2021; 242:118451. [PMID: 34358660 PMCID: PMC9933001 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
When investigating connectivity and microstructure of white matter pathways of the brain using diffusion tractography bundle segmentation, it is important to understand potential confounds and sources of variation in the process. While cross-scanner and cross-protocol effects on diffusion microstructure measures are well described (in particular fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity), it is unknown how potential sources of variation effect bundle segmentation results, which features of the bundle are most affected, where variability occurs, nor how these sources of variation depend upon the method used to reconstruct and segment bundles. In this study, we investigate six potential sources of variation, or confounds, for bundle segmentation: variation (1) across scan repeats, (2) across scanners, (3) across vendors (4) across acquisition resolution, (5) across diffusion schemes, and (6) across diffusion sensitization. We employ four different bundle segmentation workflows on two benchmark multi-subject cross-scanner and cross-protocol databases, and investigate reproducibility and biases in volume overlap, shape geometry features of fiber pathways, and microstructure features within the pathways. We find that the effects of acquisition protocol, in particular acquisition resolution, result in the lowest reproducibility of tractography and largest variation of features, followed by vendor-effects, scanner-effects, and finally diffusion scheme and b-value effects which had similar reproducibility as scan-rescan variation. However, confounds varied both across pathways and across segmentation workflows, with some bundle segmentation workflows more (or less) robust to sources of variation. Despite variability, bundle dissection is consistently able to recover the same location of pathways in the deep white matter, with variation at the gray matter/ white matter interface. Next, we show that differences due to the choice of bundle segmentation workflows are larger than any other studied confound, with low-to-moderate overlap of the same intended pathway when segmented using different methods. Finally, quantifying microstructure features within a pathway, we show that tractography adds variability over-and-above that which exists due to noise, scanner effects, and acquisition effects. Overall, these confounds need to be considered when harmonizing diffusion datasets, interpreting or combining data across sites, and when attempting to understand the successes and limitations of different methodologies in the design and development of new tractography or bundle segmentation methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kurt G. Schilling
- Department of Radiology & Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States,Vanderbilt Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Chantal M.W. Tax
- Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Francois Rheault
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Colin Hansen
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Qi Yang
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Fang-Cheng Yeh
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, United States
| | - Leon Cai
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Adam W. Anderson
- Department of Radiology & Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States,Vanderbilt Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States,Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| | - Bennett A. Landman
- Department of Radiology & Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States,Vanderbilt Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States,Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States,Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
| |
Collapse
|