Cargando…

A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()

Neurological damage, due to conditions such as stroke, results in a complex pattern of structural changes and significant behavioural dysfunctions; the automated analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and discovery of structural–behavioural correlates associated with these disorders remains ch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crum, William R., Giampietro, Vincent P., Smith, Edward J., Gorenkova, Natalia, Stroemer, R. Paul, Modo, Michel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23727124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.05.009
_version_ 1782282694041796608
author Crum, William R.
Giampietro, Vincent P.
Smith, Edward J.
Gorenkova, Natalia
Stroemer, R. Paul
Modo, Michel
author_facet Crum, William R.
Giampietro, Vincent P.
Smith, Edward J.
Gorenkova, Natalia
Stroemer, R. Paul
Modo, Michel
author_sort Crum, William R.
collection PubMed
description Neurological damage, due to conditions such as stroke, results in a complex pattern of structural changes and significant behavioural dysfunctions; the automated analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and discovery of structural–behavioural correlates associated with these disorders remains challenging. Voxel lesion symptom mapping (VLSM) has been used to associate behaviour with lesion location in MRI, but this analysis requires the definition of lesion masks on each subject and does not exploit the rich structural information in the images. Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) has been used to perform voxel-wise structural analyses over the entire brain; however, a combination of lesion hyper-intensities and subtle structural remodelling away from the lesion might confound the interpretation of TBM. In this study, we compared and contrasted these techniques in a rodent model of stroke (n = 58) to assess the efficacy of these techniques in a challenging pre-clinical application. The results from the automated techniques were compared using manually derived region-of-interest measures of the lesion, cortex, striatum, ventricle and hippocampus, and considered against model power calculations. The automated TBM techniques successfully detect both lesion and non-lesion effects, consistent with manual measurements. These techniques do not require manual segmentation to the same extent as VLSM and should be considered part of the toolkit for the unbiased analysis of pre-clinical imaging-based studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3759848
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37598482013-09-15 A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke() Crum, William R. Giampietro, Vincent P. Smith, Edward J. Gorenkova, Natalia Stroemer, R. Paul Modo, Michel J Neurosci Methods Computational Neuroscience Neurological damage, due to conditions such as stroke, results in a complex pattern of structural changes and significant behavioural dysfunctions; the automated analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and discovery of structural–behavioural correlates associated with these disorders remains challenging. Voxel lesion symptom mapping (VLSM) has been used to associate behaviour with lesion location in MRI, but this analysis requires the definition of lesion masks on each subject and does not exploit the rich structural information in the images. Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) has been used to perform voxel-wise structural analyses over the entire brain; however, a combination of lesion hyper-intensities and subtle structural remodelling away from the lesion might confound the interpretation of TBM. In this study, we compared and contrasted these techniques in a rodent model of stroke (n = 58) to assess the efficacy of these techniques in a challenging pre-clinical application. The results from the automated techniques were compared using manually derived region-of-interest measures of the lesion, cortex, striatum, ventricle and hippocampus, and considered against model power calculations. The automated TBM techniques successfully detect both lesion and non-lesion effects, consistent with manual measurements. These techniques do not require manual segmentation to the same extent as VLSM and should be considered part of the toolkit for the unbiased analysis of pre-clinical imaging-based studies. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press 2013-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3759848/ /pubmed/23727124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.05.009 Text en © 2013 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) license
spellingShingle Computational Neuroscience
Crum, William R.
Giampietro, Vincent P.
Smith, Edward J.
Gorenkova, Natalia
Stroemer, R. Paul
Modo, Michel
A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
title A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
title_full A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
title_fullStr A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
title_short A comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
title_sort comparison of automated anatomical–behavioural mapping methods in a rodent model of stroke()
topic Computational Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23727124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.05.009
work_keys_str_mv AT crumwilliamr acomparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT giampietrovincentp acomparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT smithedwardj acomparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT gorenkovanatalia acomparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT stroemerrpaul acomparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT modomichel acomparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT crumwilliamr comparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT giampietrovincentp comparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT smithedwardj comparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT gorenkovanatalia comparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT stroemerrpaul comparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke
AT modomichel comparisonofautomatedanatomicalbehaviouralmappingmethodsinarodentmodelofstroke