Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease

Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combine...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging 2016-06, Vol.252, p.26-35
Hauptverfasser: Cover, Keith S, van Schijndel, Ronald A, Versteeg, Adriaan, Leung, Kelvin K, Mulder, Emma R, Jong, Remko A, Visser, Peter J, Redolfi, Alberto, Revillard, Jerome, Grenier, Baptiste, Manset, David, Damangir, Soheil, Bosco, Paolo, Vrenken, Hugo, van Dijk, Bob W, Frisoni, Giovanni B, Barkhof, Frederik
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combined with the boundary shift integral (MAPS-HBSI) were calculated. Back-to-back (BTB) 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1) study at baseline and year one were used. Analysis on 3 groups of subjects was performed – 562 subjects at 1.5 T, a 75 subject group that also had manual segmentation and 111 subjects at 3 T. A simple and novel statistical test based on the binomial distribution was used that handled outlying data points robustly. Median hippocampal atrophy rates were −1.1% /year for healthy controls, −3.0%/year for mildly cognitively impaired and −5.1% /year for AD subjects. The best reproducibility was observed for MAPS-HBSI (1.3%), while the other methods tested had reproducibilities at least 50% higher at 1.5 T and 3 T which was statistically significant. For a clinical trial, MAPS-HBSI should require less than half the subjects of the other methods tested. All methods had good accuracy versus manual segmentation. The MAPS-HBSI method has substantially better reproducibility than the other methods considered.
ISSN:0925-4927
1872-7506
DOI:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.04.006