Intra- and interscanner variability of automated voxel-based volumetry based on a 3D probabilistic atlas of human cerebral structures

The intra- and inter-scanner variability of an automated method for MRI-based volumetry was investigated. Using SPM5 algorithms and predefined masks derived from a probabilistic whole-brain atlas, this method allows to determine the volumes of various brain structures (e.g., hemispheres, lobes, cerebellum, basal ganglia, grey and white matter etc.) in single subjects in an observer-independent fashion. A healthy volunteer was scanned three times at six different MRI scanners (including different vendors and field strengths) to calculate intra- and inter-scanner volumetric coefficients of variation (CV). The mean intra-scanner CV values per brain structure ranged from 0.50% to 4.4% (median, 0.89%), while the inter-scanner CV results varied between 0.66% and 14.7% (median, 4.74%). The overall (=combined intra- and inter-scanner) variability of measurements was only marginally higher, with CV results of 0.87-15.1% (median, 4.80%). Furthermore, the minimum percentage volume difference for detecting a significant volume change between two volume measurements in the same subject was calculated for each substructure. For example, for the total brain volume, mean intra-scanner, inter-scanner, and overall CV results were 0.50%, 3.78%, and 3.80%, respectively, and the cut-offs for significant volume changes between two measurements in the same subject amounted to 1.4% for measurements on the same scanner and 10.5% on different scanners. These findings may be useful for planning and assessing volumetric studies in neurological diseases, for the differentiation of certain patterns of atrophy, or for longitudinal studies monitoring the course of a disease and potential therapeutic effects.

[1]  Nick C. Fox,et al.  The boundary shift integral: an accurate and robust measure of cerebral volume changes from registered repeat MRI , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  Arthur W. Toga,et al.  Impact of acquisition protocols and processing streams on tissue segmentation of T1 weighted MR images , 2006, NeuroImage.

[3]  Arvid Lundervold,et al.  Evaluation of automated brain MR image segmentation and volumetry methods , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[4]  Alexander Hammers,et al.  Evaluation of atlas-based segmentation of hippocampi in healthy humans. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[5]  Simon B. Eickhoff,et al.  A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data , 2005, NeuroImage.

[6]  Alexander Hammers,et al.  Three‐dimensional maximum probability atlas of the human brain, with particular reference to the temporal lobe , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[7]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Continuous Univariate Distributions. , 1995 .

[8]  Nick C. Fox,et al.  Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of atrophy in Alzheimer's disease: Cross-validation of BSI, SIENA and SIENAX , 2007, NeuroImage.

[9]  Joanna M. Wardlaw,et al.  Prospective multi-centre Voxel Based Morphometry study employing scanner specific segmentations: Procedure development using CaliBrain structural MRI data , 2009, BMC Medical Imaging.

[10]  Stefan J. Teipel,et al.  Novel MRI techniques in the assessment of dementia , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[11]  Christian Buechel,et al.  Acquisition-related morphological variability in structural MRI. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[12]  Clifford R. Jack,et al.  Interpreting scan data acquired from multiple scanners: A study with Alzheimer's disease , 2008, NeuroImage.

[13]  J Y Boire,et al.  Tissue segmentation on MR images of the brain by possibilistic clustering on a 3D wavelet representation , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[14]  Arvid Lundervold,et al.  Volume distribution of cerebrospinal fluid using multispectral MR imaging , 2000, Medical Image Anal..

[15]  Nick C. Fox,et al.  Accuracy assessment of global and local atrophy measurement techniques with realistic simulated longitudinal Alzheimer's disease images , 2008, NeuroImage.

[16]  Hilleke E. Hulshoff Pol,et al.  Brain volumes as predictor of outcome in recent-onset schizophrenia: a multi-center MRI study , 2003, Schizophrenia Research.

[17]  Hanna Damasio,et al.  Evaluation of voxel-based morphometry for focal lesion detection in individuals , 2003, NeuroImage.

[18]  Klaus Seppi,et al.  Proposed neuroimaging criteria for the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy , 2009, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[19]  Nick C. Fox,et al.  Ten simple rules for reporting voxel-based morphometry studies , 2008, NeuroImage.

[20]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Sensitivity of voxel-based morphometry analysis to choice of imaging protocol at 3 T , 2009, NeuroImage.

[21]  H. Huppertz,et al.  Automatic striatal volumetry allows for identification of patients with chorea-acanthocytosis at single subject level , 2008, Journal of Neural Transmission.

[22]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Accurate, Robust, and Automated Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Brain Change Analysis , 2002, NeuroImage.

[23]  Borys Shuter,et al.  Reproducibility of brain tissue volumes in longitudinal studies: Effects of changes in signal-to-noise ratio and scanner software , 2008, NeuroImage.

[24]  Arthur W. Toga,et al.  Construction of a 3D probabilistic atlas of human cortical structures , 2008, NeuroImage.

[25]  Arthur W. Toga,et al.  A Probabilistic Atlas of the Human Brain: Theory and Rationale for Its Development The International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM) , 1995, NeuroImage.

[26]  Tyrone D. Cannon,et al.  Reliability of brain volumes from multicenter MRI acquisition: A calibration study , 2004, Human brain mapping.

[27]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Cerebral atrophy measurements using Jacobian integration: Comparison with the boundary shift integral , 2006, NeuroImage.