Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research ArticlePediatric Neuroimaging

Computer-Assisted Volumetric Measurement of Core Infarct Volume in Pediatric Patients: Feasibility for Clinical Use and Development of Quantitative Metrics for Outcome Prediction

C.G. Filippi, A.M. El-Ali, V.Z. Miloushev, D.S. Chow, X. Guo and B. Zhao
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2015, 36 (4) 789-794; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4183
C.G. Filippi
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A.M. El-Ali
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
V.Z. Miloushev
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D.S. Chow
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
X. Guo
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Zhao
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarct volume may predict clinical outcome in acute stroke, but manual segmentation techniques limit its routine use. We hypothesized that computer-assisted volumetric analysis to quantify acute infarct volume will show no difference compared with manual segmentation but will show increased speed of performance and will correlate with outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with acute stroke younger than 18 years were included. Infarct volume on diffusion-weighted imaging was quantified by using computer-assisted volumetric and manual techniques. The Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure scored clinical outcome. Computer-assisted volumetric and manual techniques were compared with correlation coefficients. Linear regression analysis compared Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure with core infarct volume and percentage volume of brain infarction.

RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were analyzed (mean age, 4.6 years). Mean infarct volume from computer-assisted volumetric and manual approaches was 65.6 and 63.7 mL, respectively (P = .56). Concordance correlation between methods was 0.980, and between users, 0.968. The mean times for segmentation between computer-assisted volumetric and manual techniques were <1 minute and 7.3 minutes (P < .001). The mean infarct volumes for good and poor outcome groups were 7.4 and 75.7 mL (P < .007). The mean percentages of infarcted brain parenchyma for good and poor outcome groups were 0.6% and 10.4% (P < .006). Volumes of 32 mL and 3% for infarcted brain were associated with poor outcome in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted volumetric quantification of infarct volume is reproducible, is significantly faster than manual techniques, and may have important applications for future clinical workflow. Core infarct volumes and infarct percentage correlated with outcome severity.

ABBREVIATIONS:

CAV
computer-assisted volumetry
PSOM
Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure

Stroke in the pediatric population is occurring at increasingly younger ages with an increasing incidence estimated at 3–5 per 100,000 according to the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample (http://www.healthdata.gov/data/dataset/hcup-nationwide-inpatient-sample-nis), which showed annual increases in acute ischemic stroke admissions from 1995 to 2008.1⇓⇓⇓⇓–6 However, pediatric stroke remains under-recognized among health care providers; a lack of evidence-based treatment and management guidelines specific to the pediatric population further complicates this problem.7,8 This represents a critical health care problem, given the potential cost to society in terms of life-years of disability and life-years lost in the face of increasing incidence of acute ischemic arterial infarction of children.6,7,9,10

Recent studies support infarct volume quantification as a potential tool in the pediatric population for predicting clinical outcome.11⇓–13 For example, Ganesan et al14 observed that infarcts of >10% parenchymal volume on T2-weighted imaging were associated with poor outcomes. Additionally, Domi et al15 reported that reduced diffusion in the corticospinal tract was a predictor of motor outcomes. Furthermore, investigations in adults have suggested that core infarct volume quantification correlates best with long-term outcome; this finding lends credibility to a similar approach in pediatric stroke.16⇓⇓–19

Currently, the criterion standard for volumetric assessment involves manual segmentation, which can be time-consuming and technically challenging. These impediments may limit its use in the emergency setting, where time is critical for management. For these reasons, computer-assisted volumetry (CAV) applied to diffusion-weighted imaging may represent a potential tool to aid in the detection of core infarct volume in the pediatric population. With regard to neuroimaging, CAV has recently been used in the examination of recurrent glioblastoma with high reproducibility and speed compared with conventional manual approaches.

The purpose of this study was to describe a novel CAV technique for assessment of core infarct volume within the pediatric population. Specifically, we describe the reliability and feasibility of this technique compared with traditional manual approaches in patients with acute stroke. Additionally, the relationship between infarct volume and clinical outcomes by using the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure (PSOM) scale will be obtained.20,21

Materials And Methods

Subjects

After institutional review board approval of this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant retrospective study, a query of the neuroradiology department data base for pediatric patients with acute arterial ischemic infarct at our institution from January 2011 to November 2012 was conducted. Acute arterial ischemic infarct was defined as an acute neurologic deficit in a patient with an MR imaging abnormality on DWI consistent with infarction and corresponding hypointense signal on the apparent diffusion coefficient map. Inclusion criteria were pediatric patients defined as younger than 18 years of age. Imaging inclusion criteria were MR imaging with DWI performed within 72 hours of admission to the hospital. Exclusion criteria were hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, prior infarcts, incomplete imaging, or poor image quality (motion degradation) and incomplete follow-up. Additionally, patients without medical records sufficient to obtain PSOM scores were also excluded.

Imaging Techniques

All imaging was performed on a 1.5T MR imaging system (Signa; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin) with an 8-channel head-array coil (Signa HDxt; GE Healthcare). We performed the following sequences: sagittal T1-weighted (TR, 450 ms/TE, 6.5 ms; 5-mm thickness; echo-train length, 4; FOV, 24 cm; 256 × 224 matrix); axial T1-weighted (TR, 433 ms/TE 6.5 ms; 5-mm thickness; echo-train length, 4; FOV, 24 cm; 256 × 224 matrix); axial T2-weighted (TR, 5000 ms/TE, 90 ms; 5-mm thickness; echo-train length, 28; FOV, 24 cm; 320 × 320 matrix); and axial FLAIR imaging (TR, 8800 ms/TE, 120 ms; TI, 1650 ms; echo-train length, 1.0; 5-mm thickness; FOV, 24 cm; 256 × 192 matrix). Axial diffusion-weighted imaging (TR, 8000 ms/TE 88 ms; echo-train length, 1.0; 5-mm thickness; 128 × 128 matrix; FOV, 24 cm) was performed by using 2 b-values (0 and 1000 s/mm2) and 3 diffusion-encoding gradient directions. Corresponding ADC maps were generated by commercial scanner software (FuncTool software; GE Healthcare).

Core Infarct Volume Segmentation

Two radiologists, including 1 with a Certificate of Added Qualification in neuroradiology, performed CAV analysis. The boundary of acute infarct was delineated on DWI sequences by using a proprietary segmentation algorithm developed in the Laboratory for Computational Image Analysis in the Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center.22,23 The computer-assisted algorithm was originally developed for liver lesions and has since been adapted for different applications, including, most recently, the volume of enhancing tumor in glioblastoma multiforme.24⇓–26 For the first step of the volume measurement, the entire infarct volume was separated from surrounding anatomic structures by using a segmentation algorithm that combines the image analysis techniques of active contours and a level set approach. Once the segmentation was completed on an image, the infarct contour was propagated to its neighboring images, serving as an initial region of interest for subsequent segmentations on the neighboring images. This process was continued iteratively until all the infarct images were segmented. Once the segmentation was finalized, infarct volumes were automatically calculated (Fig 1). For brain volume, we determined the contour of the brain cortical surface from which ventricular volume is subtracted by contouring the ventricular lining.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

A, Reduced diffusivity within the right putamen consistent with an area of acute infarction. B, The contour derived from the semiautomated computer segmentation software that is used to derive infarct volume.

The same 2 radiologists, both of whom were blinded to the patients' prior CAV volumes and clinical outcomes, performed manual segmentation of infarct volume. Segmentation was performed by manual tracing of regions of reduced diffusion on DWI sequences. All manual segmentations were performed at a dedicated workstation (Advantage Workstation, Version 4.3; GE Healthcare). To reduce bias from prior CAV analysis, we performed manual measurements 3 months after the initial CAV analysis. All measurements were recorded in milliliters, and the time required to perform CAV and manual segmentation for core infarct volume was noted.

Correlation with Clinical Outcomes

Clinical outcome was scored by using the PSOM, which uses neurologic evaluation to examine sensorimotor function bilaterally, productive and receptive language, and cognitive and behavioral development.20,21 The PSOM is typically scored as good (healthy or mild deficit) and poor (moderate or severe), and validity of the PSOM is not significantly affected when performed retrospectively.20 Clinical data and PSOM were determined from chart review by using the examination findings of a pediatric neurologist. All patients were evaluated by a neurology attending physician following stroke, which was confirmed through chart review. Two neuroradiologists performed chart review.

Statistical Analysis

Mean manual and semiautomated volumetric measurements and segmentation times were compared by using a paired t test. Concordance correlation coefficients with corresponding confidence intervals between semiautomated and manual volumetric measurements were obtained. For analysis of clinical outcomes, core infarct volumes and the percentage of infarcted parenchymal volumes were compared among patients with good and poor outcomes by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Linear regression analysis was performed comparing the PSOM with core infarct volume and percentage volume of brain infarction. All statistical analysis was performed by using MedCalc for Windows, Version 12.2.1.0 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium). For this study, a P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Subjects

In total, 29 patients were identified, of which 79.3% (23/29) met the inclusion criteria. Patient demographics are listed in Table 1. These included 12 male and 11 female patients (age range, 0–17.6 years; mean age, 4.6 years) presenting with acute stroke. Clinical follow-up ranged from 0.8 to 19.3 months (mean, 5.1 months). Six patients were excluded. One had hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy rather than acute stroke, 1 had marked intraparenchymal hemorrhage and prior infarcts, 1 had incomplete imaging with poor image quality (motion degradation), and another had incomplete clinical follow-up. An additional 2 patients did not have all test items in their medical records to calculate a PSOM score and were excluded.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Demographics of patients

Comparison between Manual and CAV Analysis

The mean core infarct volumes obtained for CAV and manual approaches were 65.6 and 63.7 mL, respectively (P = .56). The mean total brain volume was 936.6 mL. The concordance correlation between the methods was 0.980 (95% CI, 0.956–0.991). The concordance correlation for CAV measurements between 2 users was 0.968 (95% CI, 0.935–0.985). The concordance correlation for manual segmentation between 2 users was 0.978 (95% CI, 0.964–0.989). The concordance for mild and large infarcts with CAV measurements was 0.999 (95% CI, 0.994–1.000) and 0.962 (95% CI, 0.915–0.983), respectively. The concordance for mild and large infarcts with manual measurements was 0.976 (95% CI, 0.943–0.990) and 0.976 (95% CI, 0.953–0.983), respectively.

The mean times for segmentation between computer-assisted and manual techniques (including times for opening and saving images) were <1 minute and 7.3 minutes, respectively (P < .01).

Correlation with Clinical Outcomes

Patient outcomes and stroke territory involvement are listed in Table 2, and patient outcomes with respect to stroke characteristics, including corresponding confidence intervals, are listed in Table 3. With regard to outcomes, 78.3% (18/23) had poor outcomes, and 21.7% (5/23) had good outcomes by the PSOM scores. Mortality was observed in 21.7% (5/23) cases. Mean core infarct volumes for the good and poor outcome groups were 7.4 and 75.7 mL, respectively (P < .007). Mean percentages of infarcted brain parenchyma for the good and poor outcome groups were 0.6% and 10.4%, respectively (P < .006). There was a significant correlation between PSOM and infarct volume (P < .01) and percentage of brain parenchymal infarction (P < .04). This is displayed graphically in Fig 2 and summarized in Table 4. Core infarct volumes of >32 mL and percentage of infarcted brain parenchyma of >3% had poor outcomes in all cases. Examples of segmentation results from CAV and manual approaches for infarcts in poor and good outcome cohorts are provided in Fig 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Patient outcomes and stroke characteristics

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Stroke characteristics and patient outcomes

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Graphic representation of the correlation of core infarct volume and percentage brain infarction with the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure. TBV indicates total brain volume.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Infarct volume versus Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

A and B, CAV segmentation results from patients in good and poor outcome groups, respectively. C and D, Manual segmentation results from the same respective patients.

Discussion

Quantification of core infarct volume within the pediatric stroke population may provide assistance in clinical decision-making and prognostic information. However, challenges in manual segmentation currently limit its utility in an acute stroke setting because it can be prohibitively time-consuming. Additionally, while the present study did not find significant variability for manual measurements, prior work has suggested that manual determination of core infarct volume is a source of variance.27 In the present study, we compared the quantification of infarct volume and the percentage of infarcted brain parenchyma by using a semiautomated, computer-assisted approach with a traditional, manual approach and observed no significant difference in measured infarct volumes. CAV assessment showed high correlation between users, but the CAV was significantly faster compared with the manual approach, taking seconds to perform. The rapidity of computer-assisted quantification of infarct volume allows its real-time integration into a routine, clinical workload and its use in investigative research.

The development of quantitative neuroimaging biomarkers is needed to inform treatment planning, management, and prognostication in the setting of acute ischemic infarct in children as well as clinical trials, which need objective metrics for the assessment of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. Several prior studies have shown a correlation between final infarct volume and worse neurologic outcome. Zecavati et al11 observed that core infarct volumes in pediatric patients, as determined on DWI, that exceed 10% of brain parenchymal volume were associated with poor neurologic outcome at 30 days; however, the authors used the Glasgow Outcome Score, which, unlike the PSOM, has not been specifically validated in the pediatric population. The PSOM is based on a standardized, neurologic examination; is currently the best validated outcome measure; and has shown excellent interobserver correlation and validity and reproducibility when used retrospectively to analyze neurologic examinations or in prospective longitudinal research.20,21,28 In our study, we assessed the correlation between core infarct volume and clinical outcome by using the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure and observed that both infarct volume and the percentage of infarcted brain parenchyma correlated significantly with outcome. Specifically, cutoff values above 32 mL for core infarct volume and 3% for percentage of infarcted brain parenchymal volume were always associated with a bad outcome.

The CAV approach is robust; it is applicable to cases of solitary and multiple lesions and may represent an advance over qualitative vascular territory-based stroke scales. In addition, the software easily delineates total brain parenchymal volume excluding extra-axial CSF so that the percentage of infarcted brain parenchyma can be easily quantified. Beyond its utility in normalizing the infarct volume, CAV can be used independently for assessing total parenchymal or ventricular volume and may have additional applications in pediatric neuroradiology. Incorporation of CAV methods in standard clinical workflow has profound implications for the relevance of the radiologic consultation. In the context of pediatric stroke, CAV may identify children who would benefit from more aggressive therapy. CAV may quantify volumetric thresholds that could be used as end points for future clinical trials in pediatric stroke, and semiautomated methods may facilitate translation of these results from clinical trials into clinical practice.

When considering our results, several limitations should be kept in mind. First, we conducted a retrospective study, and our cohort of 23 patients is modest in size, which limits evaluation for confounders. Second, inclusion of neonates could be an additional confounder because longer follow-up may be needed because there may be a delay in the appearance of deficits after neonatal stroke, given that subtle sequelae may be difficult to delineate on neurologic examination in an incompletely myelinated, immature brain.20,28 However, the average age in our study was almost 5 years. Because our study was based at a tertiary referral center, the poor outcome category could have been over-represented. Children with associated neurologic disorders are included because stroke occurs with increased incidence in this group and gives the results wider applicability, and other investigators have validated the inclusion of children with neurologic disorders.28 Additionally, our study is based on calculation of infarct volume on DWI sequences in the acute setting within 72 hours of diagnosis. However, Ebinger et al12 have shown that subacute reduced diffusion volume in adults tightly correlated with final neurologic outcome assessed with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, but most studies have shown stable DWI lesion evolution from 36 hours to 2 weeks.12,29

Conclusions

CAV quantification of core infarct volume in acute arterial ischemic infarct in pediatric patients provides a reproducible and significantly faster result comparable with manual techniques, which allows its easy integration into routine, clinical workflow. In our study, cutoff values above 32 mL for core infarct volume and 3% for percentage of infarcted brain parenchymal volume were associated with a poor outcome in all patients.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Christopher G. Filippi—RELATED: Grant: Radiological Society of North America Medical Student Seed Grant,* Comments: At the time of the study, coauthor Alexander El-Ali was a medical student; he is now a doctor, having graduated in May; UNRELATED: Consultancy: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Syntactx; Grants/Grants Pending: National Institutes of Health, Comments: 7/01/2012 to 4/30/2017; “Chronic Convection-Enhanced Delivery of Topotecan in Malignant Glioblastoma Multiforme”; Collaborator: C.G. Filippi (10% effort); Principal Investigator: Jeffrey Bruce; National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute; 1R01CA161404-01A; Other: advisor to resident and medical student as a research mentor,* Comments: Medical student and radiology residents have Radiological Society of North America grants for which I am scientific mentor, but this is unrelated to this work because it deals with T1 ρ MR imaging. *Money paid to the institution.

  • Alexander M. El-Ali, MD, is a recipient of Radiological Society of North America Medical Student Seed Grant 2013–2014.

  • Paper previously presented as an oral abstract at: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Neuroradiology, May 17–22, 2014; Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. deVeber G,
    2. Roach ES,
    3. Riela AR, et al
    . Stroke in children: recognition, treatment, and future directions. Semin Pediatr Neurol 2000;7:309–17
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Carandang R,
    2. Seshadri S,
    3. Beiser A, et al
    . Trends in incidence, lifetime risk, severity, and 30-day mortality of stroke over the past 50 years. JAMA 2006;296:2939–46
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kissela BM,
    2. Khoury JC,
    3. Alwell K, et al
    . Age at stroke: temporal trends in stroke incidence in a large, biracial population. Neurology 2012;79:1781–87
    CrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. George MG,
    2. Tong X,
    3. Kuklina EV, et al
    . Trends in stroke hospitalizations and associated risk factors among children and young adults, 1995–2008. Ann Neurol 2011;70:713–21
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Fox CK,
    2. Fullerton HJ
    . Recent advances in childhood arterial ischemic stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2010;12:217–24
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sultan S,
    2. Elkind MS
    . Stroke in young adults: on the rise? Neurology 2012;79:1752–53
    CrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gardner MA,
    2. Hills NK,
    3. Sidney S, et al
    . The 5-year direct medical cost of neonatal and childhood stroke in a population-based cohort. Neurology 2010;74:372–78
    CrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Simma B,
    2. Holiner I,
    3. Luetschg J
    . Therapy in pediatric stroke. Eur J Pediatr 2013;172:867–75
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Engelmann KA,
    2. Jordan LC
    . Outcome measures used in pediatric stroke studies: a systematic review. Arch Neurol 2012;69:23–27
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lequin MH,
    2. Dudink J,
    3. Tong KA, et al
    . Magnetic resonance imaging in neonatal stroke. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2009;14:299–310
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Zecavati N,
    2. Singh R,
    3. Farias-Moeller R, et al
    . The utility of infarct volume measurement in pediatric ischemic stroke. J Child Neurol 2013;29:811–17
    PubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ebinger M,
    2. Christensen S,
    3. De Silva DA, et al
    . Expediting MRI-based proof-of-concept stroke trials using an earlier imaging end point. Stroke 2009;40:1353–58
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Yoo AJ,
    2. Chaudhry ZA,
    3. Nogueira RG, et al
    . Infarct volume is a pivotal biomarker after intra-arterial stroke therapy. Stroke 2012;43:1323–30
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ganesan V,
    2. Ng V,
    3. Chong WK, et al
    . Lesion volume, lesion location, and outcome after middle cerebral artery territory stroke. Arch Dis Child 1999;81:295–300
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Domi T,
    2. deVeber G,
    3. Shroff M, et al
    . Corticospinal tract pre-Wallerian degeneration: a novel outcome predictor for pediatric stroke on acute MRI. Stroke 2009;40:780–87
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Beaulieu C,
    2. de Crespigny A,
    3. Tong DC, et al
    . Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study of perfusion and diffusion in stroke: evolution of lesion volume and correlation with clinical outcome. Ann Neurol 1999;46:568–78
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Baird AE,
    2. Lövblad KO,
    3. Dashe JF, et al
    . Clinical correlations of diffusion and perfusion lesion volumes in acute ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis 2000;10:441–48
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Tong DC,
    2. Yenari MA,
    3. Albers GW, et al
    . Correlation of perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MRI with NIHSS score in acute (<6.5 hour) ischemic stroke. Neurology 1998;50:864–70
    CrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Lövblad KO,
    2. Baird AE,
    3. Schlaug G, et al
    . Ischemic lesion volumes in acute stroke by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging correlate with clinical outcome. Ann Neurol 1997;42:164–70
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kitchen L,
    2. Westmacott R,
    3. Friefeld S, et al
    . The Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure: a validation and reliability study. Stroke 2012;43:1602–08
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. deVeber GA,
    2. MacGregor D,
    3. Curtis R, et al
    . Neurologic outcome in survivors of childhood arterial ischemic stroke and sinovenous thrombosis. J Child Neurol 2000;15:316–24
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Guo X,
    2. Zhao B
    . A method and apparatus for infarct segmentation. Columbia University Invention Report IR #CU15049. http://innovation.columbia.edu/technologies/2906_cumc-radiology-imaging-lab-available-technologies. Accessed November 24, 2014.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Guo X,
    2. Zhao B,
    3. Schwartz LH
    . Methods and systems for segmentation of organs and tumors and objects. US Patent application PCT/US13/36166. April 1, 2013
  24. 24.↵
    1. Guo X,
    2. Schwartz LH,
    3. Zhao B
    . Semi-automated segmentation of multimodal brain tumor using active contours. In: Proceedings of NCI-MICCAI BRATS, Nagoya, Japan. September 22–26, 2013:17–30
  25. 25.↵
    1. De Marchis GM,
    2. Filippi CG,
    3. Guo X, et al
    . Brain injury visible on early MRI after subarachnoid hemorrhage might predict neurological impairment and functional outcome. Neurocritic Care 2014 Jul 11. [Epub ahead of print]
  26. 26.↵
    1. Chow DS,
    2. Qi J,
    3. Guo X, et al
    . Semiautomated volumetric measurement on postcontrast MR imaging for analysis of recurrent and residual disease in glioblastoma multiforme. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:498–503
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Rafay MF,
    2. Pontigon AM,
    3. Chiang J, et al
    . Delay to diagnosis in acute pediatric arterial ischemic stroke. Stroke 2009;40:58–64
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. deVeber G,
    2. Andrew M,
    3. Adams C, et al
    . Cerebral sinovenous thrombosis in children. N Engl J Med 2001;345:417–23
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Lansberg MG,
    2. O'Brien MW,
    3. Tong DC, et al
    . Evolution of cerebral infarct volume assessed by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Neurol 2001;58:613–17
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received June 4, 2014.
  • Accepted after revision September 28, 2014.
  • © 2015 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 36 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 36, Issue 4
1 Apr 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Computer-Assisted Volumetric Measurement of Core Infarct Volume in Pediatric Patients: Feasibility for Clinical Use and Development of Quantitative Metrics for Outcome Prediction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
C.G. Filippi, A.M. El-Ali, V.Z. Miloushev, D.S. Chow, X. Guo, B. Zhao
Computer-Assisted Volumetric Measurement of Core Infarct Volume in Pediatric Patients: Feasibility for Clinical Use and Development of Quantitative Metrics for Outcome Prediction
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2015, 36 (4) 789-794; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4183

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Computer-Assisted Volumetric Measurement of Core Infarct Volume in Pediatric Patients: Feasibility for Clinical Use and Development of Quantitative Metrics for Outcome Prediction
C.G. Filippi, A.M. El-Ali, V.Z. Miloushev, D.S. Chow, X. Guo, B. Zhao
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2015, 36 (4) 789-794; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4183
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials And Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (7)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Automated Estimation of Acute Infarct Volume from Noncontrast Head CT Using Image Intensity Inhomogeneity Correction
    Keith A. Cauley, Gino J. Mongelluzzo, Samuel W. Fielden
    International Journal of Biomedical Imaging 2019 2019
  • Lesion size and long-term cognitive outcome after pediatric stroke: A comparison between two techniques to assess lesion size
    Regula Everts, Shana Bertato, Maja Steinlin, Nedelina Slavova, Sebastian Grunt, Leonie Steiner
    European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 2023 42
  • Harnessing Neuroimaging Capability in Pediatric Stroke: Proceedings of the Stroke Imaging Laboratory for Children Workshop
    Nomazulu Dlamini, Max Wintermark, Heather Fullerton, Stephen Strother, Wayne Lee, Bruce Bjornson, Kristin P. Guilliams, Steven Miller, Adam Kirton, Christopher G. Filippi, Alexandra Linds, Rand Askalan, Gabrielle deVeber
    Pediatric Neurology 2017 69
  • Imaging of Pediatric Stroke
    Aashim Bhatia, Sumit Pruthi
    The Indian Journal of Pediatrics 2016 83 9
  • Maternal Undernutrition Modulates Neonatal Rat Cerebrovascular Structure, Function, and Vulnerability to Mild Hypoxic-Ischemic Injury via Corticosteroid-Dependent and -Independent Mechanisms
    Patsy Naomi Franco, Lara M. Durrant, Coleen Doan, Desirelys Carreon, Alejandra Beltran, Amandine Jullienne, Andre Obenaus, William J. Pearce
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021 22 2
  • Correlation between the Volume of MRI Brain Infarct and Inflammatory Markers among Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients
    Suraini Mohamad Saini, Muhammad Syakir Azmi, Anna Maisarah Mohamad Ariff, Tharani G. Baramesvarana, Sabariah Md Noor
    European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences 2023 5 4
  • Tissue Is the Issue: A Systematic Review of Methods for the Determination of Infarct Volume in Acute Ischaemic Stroke
    Fatimah Al Ahmed, Patrick Kennelly, Darragh Herlihy, Jorin Bejleri, David J. Williams, John J. Thornton, Shona Pfeiffer
    Brain Sciences 2025 15 6

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparing MRI Perfusion in Pediatric Brain Tumors
  • Frontal Paraventricular Cysts
  • Sodium MRI in Pediatric Brain Tumors
Show more PEDIATRIC NEUROIMAGING

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner
  • Book Reviews

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire