Normalization of MRI T1w between-scan effects for improved longitudinal volumetric estimates
Sederevicius, D.; Bjornerud, A.; Walhovd, K. B.; Fjell, A. M.
Show abstract
Variations in image intensities and contrasts between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisitions affect the subsequent image processing and its derived outcomes. Therefore, comparability between acquisitions is improved if we reduce these variations. This is especially relevant for longitudinal studies where a change of scanner or acquisition protocol often happens between subsequent examinations. In this study, we use a robust intensity distribution alignment (RIDA) method to reduce between-scan effects and improve longitudinal volume change estimates between two MRI scanners - Siemens 1.5T Avanto and 3T Skyra. The method is based on MRI T1w images acquired in close succession and robustly aligns two cumulative distribution functions of voxel intensities to harmonize image intensities and improve image-derived outcomes of a range of subcortical brain. We compare RIDA with volume-based correction - a simple linear regression model. In both cases, we derive intensity and volume transformations from a training dataset of 20 participants scanned on both scanners on the same day and apply to an independent longitudinal test dataset of 243 participants. All participants in the test set were scanned at the Avanto scanner at the baseline and then at the Avanto and Skyra scanners on the same day at the follow-up, on average 4.4 years (sd = 0.5 years) later. This allowed us to directly assess the effect of scanner and protocol change on the longitudinal change estimates. Eight subcortical brain regions were segmented using SAMSEG, and annualized symmetrized percent change in volume between time points was calculated. We find that RIDA significantly reduces between-scan effects and improves longitudinal volume estimates for the amygdala and lateral ventricles. It also reduces between-scan effects for caudate, putamen, and thalamus, but not as much as linear regression models. Whether the method will be useful for a particular study will depend on the image intensity profiles of the scans. Therefore, a pilot study of double-scanned participants is recommended to assess the advantages of the method for the analysis in question.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Is it Time to Switch Your T1W Sequence? Assessing the Impact of Prospective Motion Correction on the Reliability and Quality of Structural Imaging 98%
- Quality control strategies for brain MRI segmentation and parcellation: practical approaches and recommendations - insights from The Maastricht Study 98%
- Integrating large-scale neuroimaging research datasets: harmonisation of white matter hyperintensity measurements across Whitehall and UK Biobank datasets 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- A series of five population-specific Indian brain templates and atlases spanning ages 6 to 60 years 97%
- Comparison of structural MRI brain measures between 1.5T and 3T: data from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 97%
- Performance of three freely available methods for extracting white matter hyperintensities: FreeSurfer, UBO Detector and BIANCA 97%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Visual QC Protocol for FreeSurfer Cortical Parcellations from Anatomical MRI 96%
- MVComp toolbox: MultiVariate Comparisons of brain MRI features accounting for common information across metrics 96%
- Longitudinal deformation based morphometry pipeline to study neuroanatomical differences in structural MRI based on SyN unbiased templates 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Robust thalamic nuclei segmentation from T1-weighted MRI using polynomial intensity transformation 97%
- Comparing Intra- and Inter-individual Correlational Brain Connectivity from Functional and Structural Neuroimaging Data 95%
- High resolution atlasing of the venous brain vasculature from 7T quantitative susceptibility 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.