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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |