Optimizing an Automated Processing Pipeline for Regional Macromolecular Proton Fraction and Volume Measurements in the Brain
Corrigan, N. M.; Hippe, D. S.; Yarnykh, V. L.
Show abstract
There is increasing demand for quantitative measurements in neuroimaging research, including absolute quantification of regional myelin density. Fast whole-brain macromolecular proton fraction (MPF) imaging enables acquisition and reconstruction of quantitative maps of MPF, a biomarker of myelin, and has been used in many research applications. To date, no standard protocols have been published for parcellating MPF maps. FreeSurfer is a widely used software package for automated brain parcellation. It is designed for use with high-resolution T1-weighted anatomical images, typically acquired with an MPRAGE sequence. MPF maps inherently provide high contrast between white and gray matter and can potentially be used as input images for parcellation, enabling simultaneous quantitative tissue characterization and volumetric assessment. However, it is unclear how the use of MPF maps as input images with FreeSurfer software affect reliability and repeatability of regional MPF and volume estimates. We evaluated three FreeSurfer parcellation workflows for this purpose. The workflows differed in the amount of neuroimaging data required and computational intensity. MPF and MPRAGE data were acquired in two separate sessions for 11 adults. Reliability was evaluated using mean relative differences in estimates, Bland-Altman analysis, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Repeatability was assessed using within-subject coefficients of variation (CVws). All three workflows produced similarly high within-subject repeatability across scans. However, reliability in regional MPF estimates was lower in gray matter than in white matter for workflows that used MPF maps as input. Workflows that use MPF maps as FreeSurfer input may be adequate for estimating mean MPF in GM and WM of cortical parcels and in subcortical regions. However, the MPRAGE-based workflow is recommended when reliable individual-level estimates or volume estimates are required.
Matching journals
The top 5 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 96%
- Reliability Assessment of Tissue Classification Algorithms for Multi-Center and Multi-Scanner Data 95%
- Quality control strategies for brain MRI segmentation and parcellation: practical approaches and recommendations - insights from The Maastricht Study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of multiband and in-plane acceleration on white matter microstructure analysis 95%
- A framework for evaluating correspondence between brain images using anatomical fiducials 95%
- Performance of three freely available methods for extracting white matter hyperintensities: FreeSurfer, UBO Detector and BIANCA 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Advancing High-Resolution 7T Diffusion MRI: Evaluating Phase-Encoding Correction Strategies for Distortion Correction from Basic to Four-Way Acquisitions 95%
- Estimation of in-scanner head pose changes during structural MRI using a convolutional neural network trained on eye tracker video 95%
- Increased Brain Volumetric Measurement Precision from Multi-Site 3D T1-weighted 3T Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Correcting Geometric Distortions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Benchmarking the Impact of Anatomical Segmentation on In Vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy 95%
- Offline Reconstruction of Diffusion MRI Acquisitions for Comparison Between Complex PCA-based and AI-based Denoising 94%
- MASiVar: Multisite, Multiscanner, and Multisubject Acquisitions for Studying Variability in Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging 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.