Evaluation of DTI property maps as basis of DTI atlas building

Compared to region of interest based DTI analysis, voxel-based analysis gives higher degree of localization and avoids the procedure of manual delineation with the resulting intra and inter-rater variability. One of the major challenges in voxel-wise DTI analysis is to get high quality voxel-level correspondence. For that purpose, current DTI analysis tools are building on nonlinear registration algorithms that deform individual datasets into a template image that is either precomputed or computed as part of the analysis. A variety of matching criteria and deformation schemes have been proposed, but often comparative evaluation is missing. In our opinion, the use of consistent and unbiased measures to evaluate current DTI procedures is of great importance and our work presents two possible measures. Specifically, we propose the evaluation criteria generalization and specificity, originally introduced by the shape modeling community, to evaluate and compare different DTI nonlinear warping results. These measures are of indirect nature and have a population wise view. Both measures incorporate information of the variability of the registration results in the template space via a voxel-wise PCA model. Thus far, we have used these measures to evaluate our own DTI analysis procedure employing fluid-based registration on scalar DTI maps. Generalization and specificity from tensor images in the template space were computed for 8 scalar property maps. We found that for our procedure an intensity-normalized FA feature outperformed the other scalar measurements. Also, using the tensor images rather than the FA maps as a comparison frame seemed to produce more robust results.

[1]  P. Thomas Fletcher,et al.  Principal geodesic analysis for the study of nonlinear statistics of shape , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  John H. Gilmore,et al.  Improved Correspondence for DTI Population Studies Via Unbiased Atlas Building , 2006, MICCAI.

[3]  N. Ayache,et al.  Log‐Euclidean metrics for fast and simple calculus on diffusion tensors , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[4]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  The geometric median on Riemannian manifolds with application to robust atlas estimation , 2009, NeuroImage.

[5]  John H. Gilmore,et al.  Group analysis of DTI fiber tract statistics with application to neurodevelopment , 2009, NeuroImage.

[6]  James C. Gee,et al.  Spatial transformations of diffusion tensor magnetic resonance images , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  Guido Gerig,et al.  Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for computational anatomy , 2004, NeuroImage.

[8]  Martin Styner,et al.  Evaluation of 3D Correspondence Methods for Model Building , 2003, IPMI.

[9]  Wilkin Chau,et al.  The Talairach coordinate of a point in the MNI space: how to interpret it , 2005, NeuroImage.

[10]  P. Basser,et al.  Estimation of the effective self-diffusion tensor from the NMR spin echo. , 1994, Journal of magnetic resonance. Series B.

[11]  Martin Styner,et al.  Voxel-wise group analysis of DTI , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[12]  Peter Lorenzen,et al.  Unbiased Atlas Formation Via Large Deformations Metric Mapping , 2005, MICCAI.