470 likes | 700 Views
Techniques for the analysis of GM structure: VBM, DBM, cortical thickness. Jason Lerch. Why should I care about anatomy?. Anatomy - behaviour. Verbal Learning. Nieman et al, 2007. Dickerson et al, 2008. The methods. Manual segmentation/volumetry. Voxel Based Morphometry (VBM).
E N D
Techniques for the analysis of GM structure: VBM, DBM, cortical thickness Jason Lerch
Why should I care about anatomy? Anatomy - behaviour Verbal Learning Nieman et al, 2007 Dickerson et al, 2008
The methods. • Manual segmentation/volumetry. • Voxel Based Morphometry (VBM). • Deformation/Tensor Based Morphometry (DBM). • optimized VBM. • automated volumetry. • cortical thickness.
Manual Segmentation • Identify one or more regions of interest. • Carefully segment these regions for all subjects. • Statistics on volumes.
And it was good. • Cons: • Labour intensive and time consuming. • Need to compute inter and intra rater reliability measures. • Pros: • Can be highly accurate. • Can discern boundaries still invisible to machine vision.
Non-uniformity correction Sled, Zijdenbos, Evans: IEEE-TMI Feb 1998
Voxel Classification T2 T1 PD
Brain 2 Brain 1 Positional Differences
Spatial Normalization Before Registration After Registration
Voxel Based Morphometry • The goal: localize changes in tissue concentration.
Tissue Density Proportion of neighbourhood occupied by tissue class
VBM statistics • Tissue density modelled by predictor(s). • I.e.: at every voxel of the brain is there a difference in tissue density between groups (or correlation with age, etc.)? • Millions of voxels tested, multiple comparisons have to be controlled.
Example Paus et al., Science 283:1908-1911, 1999 111 healthy children Aged 4-18
And it was good. • Pros: • Extremely simple and quick. • Can look at whole brain and different tissue compartments. • By far most common automated technique - easy comparison to other studies. • Cons • Hard to explain change (WM? GM?). • Hard to precisely localize differences. • Hard time dealing with different size brains.
Tensor Based Morphometry • The goal: localize differences in brain shape.
Jacobians Chung et al. A unified statistical approach to deformation-based morphometry. Neuroimage (2001) vol. 14 (3) pp. 595-606
Childhood Music Hyde et al., 2008
And it was good. • Pros: • Excellent for simple topology (animal studies). • Excellent for longitudinal data. • Does not need tissue classification. • Cons: • hard matching human cortex from different subjects. • Can be quite algorithm dependent.
Optimized VBM • The goal: combine the best of VBM and TBM
And it was good. • Pros: • More accurate localization than plain VBM. • Cons: • Dependent on non-linear registration algorithm. • Is it really better than either VBM or TBM alone?
Automatic segmentation • The goal: structure volumes without manual work.
And it was good. • Pros: • A lot less work than manual segmentation. • Excellent if image intensities can be used. • Excellent if non-linear registration is accurate. • Cons: • Not always accurate for small structures. • Hard time dealing with complex cortical topology.
Cortical Thickness • The goal: measure the thickness of the cortex.
Processing Continued 4.5mm 1.0mm
And it was good. • Pros: • Extremely accurate localization of cortical change. • Sensible anatomical measure. • Sensible blurring. • Cons: • Only covers one dimension of one part of the brain. • Computationally very expensive and difficult.
Advice, part 1 • MRI anatomy studies need more subjects than fMRI • aim for at least 20 per group. • Acquire controls on same hardware. • Isotropic sequences are your friend. • T1 is enough unless you’re looking for lesions.
Advice, part 2 • Group comparison, strong hypothesis? • manual segmentation. • automatic segmentation: FreeSurfer. • Group comparison, few hypotheses? • VBM: SPM, FSL, MINC tools. • automatic segmentation: FreeSurfer. • Group comparison, cortical hypothesis? • cortical thickness: FreeSurfer, MINC tools. • sulcal morphology/shape: BrainVisa/anatomist. • Lesion/stroke? • manual segmentation. • classification: MINC tools. • Longitudinal data? • deformations: SPM (Dartel), ANTS, FSL (SIENA), MINC tools.
Acknowledgements Judith Rapoport Jay Giedd Dede Greenstein Rhoshel Lenroot Philip Shaw Jeffrey Carroll Michael Hayden Harald Hampel Stefan Teipel Alan Evans Alex Zijdenbos Krista Hyde Claude Lepage Yasser Ad-Dab’bagh Tomas Paus Jens Pruessner Veronique Bohbot John Sled Mark Henkelman Matthijs van Eede Jurgen Germann