Dataset Information

Inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry: influence of automated brain segmentation software.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry is important in multi-site neuroimaging studies, where the reliability of automated brain segmentation (ABS) tools plays an important role. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of ABS tools on the consistency and reproducibility of the quantified brain volumetry from different scanners.

Methods

We included fifteen healthy volunteers who were scanned with 3D isotropic brain T1-weighted sequence on three different 3.0 Tesla MRI scanners (GE, Siemens and Philips). For each individual, the time span between image acquisitions on different scanners was limited to 1 h. All the T1-weighted images were processed with FreeSurfer v6.0, FSL v5.0 and AccuBrain^® with default settings to obtain volumetry of brain tissues (e.g. gray matter) and substructures (e.g. basal ganglia structures) if available. Coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated to test inter-scanner variability in brain volumetry of various structures as quantified by these ABS tools.

Results

The mean inter-scanner CV values per brain structure among three MRI scanners ranged from 6.946 to 12.29% (mean, 9.577%) for FreeSurfer, 7.245 to 20.98% (mean, 12.60%) for FSL and 1.348 to 8.800% (mean value, 3.546%) for AccuBrain^®. In addition, AccuBrain^® and FreeSurfer achieved the lowest mean values of region-specific CV between GE and Siemens scanners (from 0.818 to 5.958% for AccuBrain^®, and from 0.903 to 7.977% for FreeSurfer), while FSL-FIRST had the lowest mean values of region-specific CV between GE and Philips scanners (from 2.603 to 16.310%). AccuBrain^® also had the lowest mean values of region-specific CV between Siemens and Philips scanners (from 1.138 to 6.615%).

Conclusion

There is a large discrepancy in the inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry when using different processing software. Image acquisition protocols and selection of ABS tool for brain volumetry quantification have impact on the robustness of results in multi-site studies.

SUBMITTER: Liu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7472704 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry: influence of automated brain segmentation software.

Liu Sirui S Hou Bo B Zhang Yiwei Y Lin Tianye T Fan Xiaoyuan X You Hui H Feng Feng F

BMC neuroscience 20200904 1

<h4>Background</h4>The inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry is important in multi-site neuroimaging studies, where the reliability of automated brain segmentation (ABS) tools plays an important role. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of ABS tools on the consistency and reproducibility of the quantified brain volumetry from different scanners.<h4>Methods</h4>We included fifteen healthy volunteers who were scanned with 3D isotropic brain T1-weighted sequence on three different ...[more]

PMID: 32887546

Similar Datasets

Project description:The location and extent of white matter lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are important criteria for diagnosis, follow-up and prognosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). Clinical trials have shown that quantitative values, such as lesion volumes, are meaningful in MS prognosis. Manual lesion delineation for the segmentation of lesions is, however, time-consuming and suffers from observer variability. In this paper, we propose MSmetrix, an accurate and reliable automatic method for lesion segmentation based on MRI, independent of scanner or acquisition protocol and without requiring any training data. In MSmetrix, 3D T1-weighted and FLAIR MR images are used in a probabilistic model to detect white matter (WM) lesions as an outlier to normal brain while segmenting the brain tissue into grey matter, WM and cerebrospinal fluid. The actual lesion segmentation is performed based on prior knowledge about the location (within WM) and the appearance (hyperintense on FLAIR) of lesions. The accuracy of MSmetrix is evaluated by comparing its output with expert reference segmentations of 20 MRI datasets of MS patients. Spatial overlap (Dice) between the MSmetrix and the expert lesion segmentation is 0.67 ± 0.11. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) equals 0.8 indicating a good volumetric agreement between the MSmetrix and expert labelling. The reproducibility of MSmetrix' lesion volumes is evaluated based on 10 MS patients, scanned twice with a short interval on three different scanners. The agreement between the first and the second scan on each scanner is evaluated through the spatial overlap and absolute lesion volume difference between them. The spatial overlap was 0.69 ± 0.14 and absolute total lesion volume difference between the two scans was 0.54 ± 0.58 ml. Finally, the accuracy and reproducibility of MSmetrix compare favourably with other publicly available MS lesion segmentation algorithms, applied on the same data using default parameter settings.

Project description:Surgical or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) techniques can be beneficial for heterogeneous emphysema. Post-processing software tools for lobar emphysema quantification are useful for patient and target lobe selection, treatment planning and post-interventional follow-up. We aimed to evaluate the inter-software variability of emphysema quantification using fully automated lobar segmentation prototypes.66 patients with moderate to severe COPD who underwent CT for planning of BLVR were included. Emphysema quantification was performed using 2 modified versions of in-house software (without and with prototype advanced lung vessel segmentation; programs 1 [YACTA v.2.3.0.2] and 2 [YACTA v.2.4.3.1]), as well as 1 commercial program 3 [Pulmo3D VA30A_HF2] and 1 pre-commercial prototype 4 [CT COPD ISP ver7.0]). The following parameters were computed for each segmented anatomical lung lobe and the whole lung: lobar volume (LV), mean lobar density (MLD), 15th percentile of lobar density (15th), emphysema volume (EV) and emphysema index (EI). Bland-Altman analysis (limits of agreement, LoA) and linear random effects models were used for comparison between the software.Segmentation using programs 1, 3 and 4 was unsuccessful in 1 (1%), 7 (10%) and 5 (7%) patients, respectively. Program 2 could analyze all datasets. The 53 patients with successful segmentation by all 4 programs were included for further analysis. For LV, program 1 and 4 showed the largest mean difference of 72 ml and the widest LoA of [-356, 499 ml] (p<0.05). Program 3 and 4 showed the largest mean difference of 4% and the widest LoA of [-7, 14%] for EI (p<0.001).Only a single software program was able to successfully analyze all scheduled data-sets. Although mean bias of LV and EV were relatively low in lobar quantification, ranges of disagreement were substantial in both of them. For longitudinal emphysema monitoring, not only scanning protocol but also quantification software needs to be kept constant.

Project description:PurposeTo compare two artificial intelligence software packages performing normative brain volumetry and explore whether they could differently impact dementia diagnostics in a clinical context.MethodsSixty patients (20 Alzheimer's disease, 20 frontotemporal dementia, 20 mild cognitive impairment) and 20 controls were included retrospectively. One MRI per subject was processed by software packages from two proprietary manufacturers, producing two quantitative reports per subject. Two neuroradiologists assigned forced-choice diagnoses using only the normative volumetry data in these reports. They classified the volumetric profile as "normal," or "abnormal", and if "abnormal," they specified the most likely dementia subtype. Differences between the packages' clinical impact were assessed by comparing (1) agreement between diagnoses based on software output; (2) diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity; and (3) diagnostic confidence. Quantitative outputs were also compared to provide context to any diagnostic differences.ResultsDiagnostic agreement between packages was moderate, for distinguishing normal and abnormal volumetry (K = .41-.43) and for specific diagnoses (K = .36-.38). However, each package yielded high inter-observer agreement when distinguishing normal and abnormal profiles (K = .73-.82). Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were not different between packages. Diagnostic confidence was different between packages for one rater. Whole brain intracranial volume output differed between software packages (10.73%, p < .001), and normative regional data interpreted for diagnosis correlated weakly to moderately (rs = .12-.80).ConclusionDifferent artificial intelligence software packages for quantitative normative assessment of brain MRI can produce distinct effects at the level of clinical interpretation. Clinics should not assume that different packages are interchangeable, thus recommending internal evaluation of packages before adoption.

Dataset Information

Inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry: influence of automated brain segmentation software.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Inter-scanner reproducibility of brain volumetry: influence of automated brain segmentation software.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets