Background: Neuroimaging shows considerable promise in generating sensitive and objective outcome measures for therapeutic trials across a range of neurodegenerative conditions. For volumetric... Show moreBackground: Neuroimaging shows considerable promise in generating sensitive and objective outcome measures for therapeutic trials across a range of neurodegenerative conditions. For volumetric measures the current gold standard is manual delineation, which is unfeasible for samples sizes required for large clinical trials.Methods: Using a cohort of early Huntington's disease (HD) patients (n = 46) and controls (n = 35), we compared the performance of four automated segmentation tools (FIRST, FreeSurfer, STEPS, MALP-EM) with manual delineation for generating cross-sectional caudate volume, a region known to be vulnerable in HD. We then examined the effect of each of these baseline regions on the ability to detect change over 15 months using the established longitudinal Caudate Boundary Shift Integral (cBSI) method, an automated longitudinal pipeline requiring a baseline caudate region as an input.Results: All tools, except Freesurfer, generated significantly smaller caudate volumes than the manually derived regions. Jaccard indices showed poorer levels of overlap between each automated segmentation and manual delineation in the HD patients compared with controls. Nevertheless, each method was able to demonstrate significant group differences in volume (p < 0.001). STEPS performed best qualitatively as well as quantitively in the baseline analysis. Caudate atrophy measures generated by the cBSI using automated baseline regions were largely consistent with those derived from a manually segmented baseline, with STEPS providing the most robust cBSI values across both control and HD groups.Conclusions: Atrophy measures from the cBSI were relatively robust to differences in baseline segmentation technique, suggesting that fully automated pipelines could be used to generate outcome measures for clinical trials. Show less
Klapwijk, E.T.; Van de Kamp, F.; Meulen, M. van der; Peters, S.; Wierenga, L.M. 2019
Performing quality control to detect image artifacts and data-processing errors is crucial in structural magnetic resonance imaging, especially in developmental studies. Currently, many studies... Show morePerforming quality control to detect image artifacts and data-processing errors is crucial in structural magnetic resonance imaging, especially in developmental studies. Currently, many studies rely on visual inspection by trained raters for quality control. The subjectivity of these manual procedures lessens comparability between studies, and with growing study sizes quality control is increasingly time consuming. In addition, both inter-rater as well as intra-rater variability of manual quality control is high and may lead to inclusion of poor quality scans and exclusion of scans of usable quality. In the current study we present the Qoala-T tool, which is an easy and free to use supervised-learning model to reduce rater bias and misclassification in manual quality control procedures using FreeSurfer-processed scans. First, we manually rated quality of N = 784 FreeSurfer-processed T1-weighted scans acquired in three different waves in a longitudinal study. Different supervised-learning models were then compared to predict manual quality ratings using FreeSurfer segmented output data. Results show that the Qoala-T tool using random forests is able to predict scan quality with both high sensitivity and specificity (mean area under the curve (AUC) = 0.98). In addition, the Qoala-T tool was also able to adequately predict the quality of two novel unseen datasets (total N = 872). Finally, analyses of age effects showed that younger participants were more likely to have lower scan quality, underlining that scan quality might confound findings attributed to age effects. These outcomes indicate that this procedure could further help to reduce variability related to manual quality control, thereby benefiting the comparability of data quality between studies. Show less
