Cargando…

Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines

The processing of brain diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data for large cohort studies requires fully automatic pipelines to perform quality control (QC) and artifact/outlier removal procedures on the raw DTI data prior to calculation of diffusion parameters. In this study, three automatic DTI process...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haddad, Seyyed M. H., Scott, Christopher J. M., Ozzoude, Miracle, Holmes, Melissa F., Arnott, Stephen R., Nanayakkara, Nuwan D., Ramirez, Joel, Black, Sandra E., Dowlatshahi, Dar, Strother, Stephen C., Swartz, Richard H., Symons, Sean, Montero-Odasso, Manuel, Bartha, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31860686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226715
_version_ 1783481756922413056
author Haddad, Seyyed M. H.
Scott, Christopher J. M.
Ozzoude, Miracle
Holmes, Melissa F.
Arnott, Stephen R.
Nanayakkara, Nuwan D.
Ramirez, Joel
Black, Sandra E.
Dowlatshahi, Dar
Strother, Stephen C.
Swartz, Richard H.
Symons, Sean
Montero-Odasso, Manuel
Bartha, Robert
author_facet Haddad, Seyyed M. H.
Scott, Christopher J. M.
Ozzoude, Miracle
Holmes, Melissa F.
Arnott, Stephen R.
Nanayakkara, Nuwan D.
Ramirez, Joel
Black, Sandra E.
Dowlatshahi, Dar
Strother, Stephen C.
Swartz, Richard H.
Symons, Sean
Montero-Odasso, Manuel
Bartha, Robert
author_sort Haddad, Seyyed M. H.
collection PubMed
description The processing of brain diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data for large cohort studies requires fully automatic pipelines to perform quality control (QC) and artifact/outlier removal procedures on the raw DTI data prior to calculation of diffusion parameters. In this study, three automatic DTI processing pipelines, each complying with the general ENIGMA framework, were designed by uniquely combining multiple image processing software tools. Different QC procedures based on the RESTORE algorithm, the DTIPrep protocol, and a combination of both methods were compared using simulated ground truth and artifact containing DTI datasets modeling eddy current induced distortions, various levels of motion artifacts, and thermal noise. Variability was also examined in 20 DTI datasets acquired in subjects with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) from the multi-site Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI). The mean fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD) were calculated in global brain grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) regions. For the simulated DTI datasets, the measure used to evaluate the performance of the pipelines was the normalized difference between the mean DTI metrics measured in GM and WM regions and the corresponding ground truth DTI value. The performance of the proposed pipelines was very similar, particularly in FA measurements. However, the pipeline based on the RESTORE algorithm was the most accurate when analyzing the artifact containing DTI datasets. The pipeline that combined the DTIPrep protocol and the RESTORE algorithm produced the lowest standard deviation in FA measurements in normal appearing WM across subjects. We concluded that this pipeline was the most robust and is preferred for automated analysis of multisite brain DTI data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6924651
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69246512020-01-07 Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines Haddad, Seyyed M. H. Scott, Christopher J. M. Ozzoude, Miracle Holmes, Melissa F. Arnott, Stephen R. Nanayakkara, Nuwan D. Ramirez, Joel Black, Sandra E. Dowlatshahi, Dar Strother, Stephen C. Swartz, Richard H. Symons, Sean Montero-Odasso, Manuel Bartha, Robert PLoS One Research Article The processing of brain diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data for large cohort studies requires fully automatic pipelines to perform quality control (QC) and artifact/outlier removal procedures on the raw DTI data prior to calculation of diffusion parameters. In this study, three automatic DTI processing pipelines, each complying with the general ENIGMA framework, were designed by uniquely combining multiple image processing software tools. Different QC procedures based on the RESTORE algorithm, the DTIPrep protocol, and a combination of both methods were compared using simulated ground truth and artifact containing DTI datasets modeling eddy current induced distortions, various levels of motion artifacts, and thermal noise. Variability was also examined in 20 DTI datasets acquired in subjects with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) from the multi-site Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI). The mean fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD) were calculated in global brain grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) regions. For the simulated DTI datasets, the measure used to evaluate the performance of the pipelines was the normalized difference between the mean DTI metrics measured in GM and WM regions and the corresponding ground truth DTI value. The performance of the proposed pipelines was very similar, particularly in FA measurements. However, the pipeline based on the RESTORE algorithm was the most accurate when analyzing the artifact containing DTI datasets. The pipeline that combined the DTIPrep protocol and the RESTORE algorithm produced the lowest standard deviation in FA measurements in normal appearing WM across subjects. We concluded that this pipeline was the most robust and is preferred for automated analysis of multisite brain DTI data. Public Library of Science 2019-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6924651/ /pubmed/31860686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226715 Text en © 2019 Haddad et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Haddad, Seyyed M. H.
Scott, Christopher J. M.
Ozzoude, Miracle
Holmes, Melissa F.
Arnott, Stephen R.
Nanayakkara, Nuwan D.
Ramirez, Joel
Black, Sandra E.
Dowlatshahi, Dar
Strother, Stephen C.
Swartz, Richard H.
Symons, Sean
Montero-Odasso, Manuel
Bartha, Robert
Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
title Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
title_full Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
title_fullStr Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
title_short Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
title_sort comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31860686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226715
work_keys_str_mv AT haddadseyyedmh comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT scottchristopherjm comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT ozzoudemiracle comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT holmesmelissaf comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT arnottstephenr comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT nanayakkaranuwand comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT ramirezjoel comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT blacksandrae comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT dowlatshahidar comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT strotherstephenc comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT swartzrichardh comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT symonssean comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT monteroodassomanuel comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines
AT bartharobert comparisonofqualitycontrolmethodsforautomateddiffusiontensorimaginganalysispipelines