Back

Ex vivo human brain volumetry: validation of magnetic resonance imaging measurements

Gerin-Lajoie, A.; Adame-Gonzalez, W.; Frigon, E.-M.; Sanches, L. G.; Nayouf, A.; Boire, D.; Dadar, M.; Maranzano, J.

2025-03-04 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.02.27.640654 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNeurodegenerative diseases are associated with brain atrophy. The volume of in vivo human brains is determined with various magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurement tools of which the validity has not been assessed against a gold standard. Here, we propose to validate the MRI brain volumes by scanning ex vivo-in situ specimens (i.e., anatomical heads), which allows the extraction of the brain after the scan to compare its volume with the gold standard water displacement method (WDM). MethodsWe acquired 3T MRI T2-weighted, T1-weighted, and MP2RAGE images of seven anatomical heads fixed with an alcohol-formaldehyde solution routinely used in anatomy laboratories and segmented the gray and white matter of the brain using two methods: 1) a manual intensity-based threshold segmentation using Display (MINC-ToolKit, McConnell BIC), and 2) an automatic Deep-Learning-based segmentation tool (SynthSeg). The brains were then extracted, and their volumes were measured with the WDM after the removal of their meninges and a midsagittal cut (to allow water penetration into the ventricles). Volumes from all methods were compared to the ground truth (WDM volumes) using a repeated-measures ANOVA. ResultsMean brain volumes, in cubic centimeters, were 1111.14{+/-}121.78 for WDM, 1020.29{+/-}70.01 for manual T2-weighted, 1056.29{+/-}90.54 for automatic T2-weighted, 1094.69{+/-}100.51 for automatic T1-weighted, 1066.56{+/-}96.52 for automatic MP2RAGE INV1, and 1156.18{+/-}121.87 for MP2RAGE INV2. All volumetry methods were significantly different (F=17.874; p<0.001) from the WDM volumes, except the automatic T1-weighted volumes. ConclusionWe demonstrate that SynthSeg accurately determines the brain volume in ex vivo-in situ T1-weighted MRI scans. Our results also suggest that given the contrast similarity between our ex vivo and in vivo sequences, the brain volumes of clinical studies are most probably sufficiently accurate, with some degree of underestimation depending on the sequence used.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
2
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
4
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
6
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
7
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
8
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
9
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
10
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
12
Frontiers in Neuroimaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
13
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
16
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
17
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
18
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
20
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
21
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Neuroinformatics
40 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
23
Neuroimage: Reports
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Brain Imaging and Behavior
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
26
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
27
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
28
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%