Cerebral atrophy measurements using Jacobian integration: Comparison with the boundary shift integral
Cerebral atrophy measurements using Jacobian integration: Comparison with the boundary shift integral
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.052
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Fox, Nicholas C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boyes, Richard G.;Rueckert, Daniel;Fox, Nicholas C.
我们在一组38名临床可能患有阿尔茨海默病（AD）的受试者和22名年龄匹配的正常对照者中，使用零萎缩、一致性、比例萎缩以及AD/对照组分离等指标，比较了两种测量脑萎缩的方法。所比较的两种方法是边界位移积分（BSI）和一种基于非刚性配准的雅可比行列式积分的技术。对于每个受试者，我们在基线时使用了两次磁共振（MR）容积扫描，并在1年后进行了第三次扫描。通过配准同一天的基线扫描对来确定零萎缩的情况，这应该近似于零变化。通过将1年随访扫描分别配准到每个基线扫描来确定一致性，这会得到两个应该非常相似的萎缩测量值，而通过将同一天的其中一次扫描减少固定量，并将其刚性配准到同一天的另一次扫描来确定比例萎缩。通过计算对照组和AD组受试者的两次1年测量的萎缩率来确定组分离情况。结果显示，雅可比积分技术在计算比例萎缩方面明显更准确（P < 0.001），并且能够更清晰地区分对照组和AD组受试者（P < 0.01）。（c）2006爱思唯尔公司。保留所有权利。
We compared two methods of measuring cerebral atrophy in a cohort of 38 clinically probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) subjects and 22 age-matched normal controls, using metrics of zero atrophy, consistency, scaled atrophy and AD/control group separation. The two methods compared were the boundary shift integral (BSI) and a technique based on the integration of Jacobian determinants from non-rigid registration. For each subject, we used two volumetric magnetic resonance (MR) scans at baseline and a third obtained I year later. The case of zero atrophy was established by registering the same-day baseline scan pair, which should approximate zero change. Consistency was established by registering the 1-year follow-up scan to each of the baseline scans, giving two measurements of atrophy that should be very similar, while scaled atrophy was established by reducing one of the same-day scans by a fixed amount, and rigidly registering this to the other same-day scan. Group separation was ascertained by calculating atrophy rates over the two 1-year measures for the control and AD subjects. The results showed the Jacobian integration technique was significantly more accurate in calculating scaled atrophy (P < 0.001) and was able to distinguish between control and AD subjects more clearly (P < 0.01). (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.