Predicting Motor Outcomes Using Atlas-Based Voxel Features of Post-Stroke Neuroimaging: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND Atlas-based voxel features have the potential to aid motor outcome prognostication after stroke, but are seldom used in clinically feasible prediction models. This could be because neuroimaging feature development is a non-standardized, complex, multistep process. This is a barrier to entry for researchers and poses issues for reproducibility and validation in a field of research where sample sizes are typically small. OBJECTIVES The primary aim of this review is to describe the methodologies currently used in motor outcome prediction studies using atlas-based voxel neuroimaging features. Another aim is to identify neuroanatomical regions commonly used for motor outcome prediction. METHODS A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol was constructed and OVID Medline and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies. The studies were then screened and details about imaging modality, image acquisition, image normalization, lesion segmentation, region of interest determination, and imaging measures were extracted. RESULTS Seventeen studies were included and examined. Common limitations were a lack of detailed reporting on image acquisition and the specific brain templates used for normalization and a lack of clear reasoning behind the atlas or imaging measure selection. A wide variety of sensorimotor regions relate to motor outcomes and there is no consensus use of one single sensorimotor atlas for motor outcome prediction. CONCLUSION There is an ongoing need to validate imaging predictors and further improve methodological techniques and reporting standards in neuroimaging feature development for motor outcome prediction post-stroke.

[1]  Timothy K. Lam,et al.  A comparison of lesion-overlap approaches to quantify corticospinal tract involvement in chronic stroke , 2022, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[2]  Nathan A. Baune,et al.  Clinical Imaging-Derived Metrics of Corticospinal Tract Structural Integrity Are Associated With Post-stroke Motor Outcomes: A Retrospective Study , 2022, Frontiers in Neurology.

[3]  Y. Kim,et al.  Multimodal Imaging Biomarker-Based Model Using Stratification Strategies for Predicting Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Severe Stroke Patients , 2021, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[4]  K. Domen,et al.  Outcome Prediction of Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage by Measurement of Lesion Volume in the Corticospinal Tract on Computed Tomography , 2021, Progress in rehabilitation medicine.

[5]  H. Karnath,et al.  Strategies for feature extraction from structural brain imaging in lesion‐deficit modelling , 2021, Human brain mapping.

[6]  F. D’Arco,et al.  Predictors of motor outcome after childhood arterial ischemic stroke , 2021, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[7]  N. Ward,et al.  Patient-specific prediction of long-term outcomes will change stroke rehabilitation for the better , 2021, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[8]  Chunlai Li,et al.  Application of Deep Learning Method on Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation , 2021, Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science).

[9]  Maurizio Corbetta,et al.  Lesion Quantification Toolkit: A MATLAB software tool for estimating grey matter damage and white matter disconnections in patients with focal brain lesions , 2020, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[10]  Joshua T. Vogelstein,et al.  Standardizing human brain parcellations , 2019, Scientific Data.

[11]  Timothy J Herron,et al.  An empirical comparison of univariate versus multivariate methods for the analysis of brain–behavior mapping , 2020, Human brain mapping.

[12]  P. Moseley,et al.  Association is not prediction: a landscape of confused reporting in diabetes - a systematic review. , 2020, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[13]  Y. Kim,et al.  Differential early predictive factors for upper and lower extremity motor recovery after ischaemic stroke , 2020, European journal of neurology.

[14]  Maurizio Corbetta,et al.  Post-stroke deficit prediction from lesion and indirect structural and functional disconnection. , 2020, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[15]  Dae-Shik Kim,et al.  Prediction of motor recovery using indirect connectivity in a lesion network after ischemic stroke , 2020, Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders.

[16]  M. Sabuncu,et al.  Machine Learning Methods Predict Individual Upper-Limb Motor Impairment Following Therapy in Chronic Stroke , 2020, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[17]  C. Sperber Rethinking causality and data complexity in brain lesion-behaviour inference and its implications for lesion-behaviour modelling , 2019, Cortex.

[18]  Kaori L Ito,et al.  A comparison of automated lesion segmentation approaches for chronic stroke T1‐weighted MRI data , 2019, Human brain mapping.

[19]  A. Leemans,et al.  Diffusion Tensor Imaging Biomarkers to Predict Motor Outcomes in Stroke: A Narrative Review , 2019, Front. Neurol..

[20]  Dinggang Shen,et al.  BIRNet: Brain image registration using dual‐supervised fully convolutional networks , 2018, Medical Image Anal..

[21]  J. Sargento-Freitas,et al.  Neuroimaging, serum biomarkers, and patient characteristics as predictors of upper limb functioning 12 weeks after acute stroke: an observational, prospective study , 2018, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[22]  Derek B Archer,et al.  A Template and Probabilistic Atlas of the Human Sensorimotor Tracts using Diffusion MRI , 2018, Cerebral cortex.

[23]  Chris Rorden,et al.  Cortical disconnection of the ipsilesional primary motor cortex is associated with gait speed and upper extremity motor impairment in chronic left hemispheric stroke , 2018, Human brain mapping.

[24]  W. Byblow,et al.  PREP2: A biomarker‐based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke , 2017, Annals of clinical and translational neurology.

[25]  N. Ward,et al.  Brain regions important for recovery after severe post-stroke upper limb paresis , 2017, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[26]  Joanna M. Wardlaw,et al.  Whole Brain Magnetic Resonance Image Atlases: A Systematic Review of Existing Atlases and Caveats for Use in Population Imaging , 2017, Front. Neuroinform..

[27]  Bokkyu Kim,et al.  Can Neurological Biomarkers of Brain Impairment Be Used to Predict Poststroke Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review , 2017, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[28]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  N. Ward,et al.  The contribution of lesion location to upper limb deficit after stroke , 2016, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[30]  Jesper Andersson,et al.  A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex , 2016, Nature.

[31]  Maurizio Filippone,et al.  Decoding post-stroke motor function from structural brain imaging , 2016, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[32]  Cathy J. Price,et al.  The PLORAS Database: A data repository for Predicting Language Outcome and Recovery After Stroke☆ , 2016, NeuroImage.

[33]  G. Schlaug,et al.  Does stroke location predict walk speed response to gait rehabilitation? , 2015, Human brain mapping.

[34]  Steven A Kautz,et al.  Corticospinal tract lesion load: An imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes , 2015, Annals of neurology.

[35]  Norman Relkin,et al.  Exploring the brain's structural connectome: A quantitative stroke lesion‐dysfunction mapping study , 2015, Human brain mapping.

[36]  Thomas E Yankeelov,et al.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[37]  G. Collins,et al.  Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[38]  B. Mwangi,et al.  A Review of Feature Reduction Techniques in Neuroimaging , 2014, Neuroinformatics.

[39]  J. Keller,et al.  Comparison of CT and MR imaging in ischemic stroke , 2012, Insights into Imaging.

[40]  Matthew Petoe,et al.  The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. , 2012, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[41]  Chris Rorden,et al.  Age-specific CT and MRI templates for spatial normalization , 2012, NeuroImage.

[42]  Peter A. Bandettini,et al.  Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images , 2012, NeuroImage.

[43]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Unbiased average age-appropriate atlases for pediatric studies , 2011, NeuroImage.

[44]  Arno Klein,et al.  Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration , 2009, NeuroImage.

[45]  Anil F. Ramlackhansingh,et al.  Lesion identification using unified segmentation-normalisation models and fuzzy clustering , 2008, NeuroImage.

[46]  Peter A. Calabresi,et al.  Tract probability maps in stereotaxic spaces: Analyses of white matter anatomy and tract-specific quantification , 2008, NeuroImage.

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

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

[49]  N. Tzourio-Mazoyer,et al.  Automated Anatomical Labeling of Activations in SPM Using a Macroscopic Anatomical Parcellation of the MNI MRI Single-Subject Brain , 2002, NeuroImage.

[50]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Application of Information Technology: A Four-Dimensional Probabilistic Atlas of the Human Brain , 2001, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..