Volumetric Analysis from a Harmonized Multisite Brain MRI Study of a Single Subject with Multiple Sclerosis

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. García-Lorenzo D,
   3. Francis S,
   4. Narayanan S, et al

   . Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclerosis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Med Image Anal 2013;17:1–18 doi:10.1016/j.media.2012.09.004 pmid:23084503

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Lublin FD,
   3. Reingold SC,
   4. Cohen JA, et al

   . Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 2014;83:278–86 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560 pmid:24871874

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Simon JH,
   3. Jacobs LD,
   4. Campion M, et al

   . Magnetic resonance studies of intramuscular interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group. Ann Neurol 1998;43:79–87 doi:10.1002/ana.410430114 pmid:9450771

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Bagnato F,
   3. Jeffries N,
   4. Richert ND, et al

   . Evolution of T1 black holes in patients with multiple sclerosis imaged monthly for 4 years. Brain 2003;126(pt 8):1782–89 doi:10.1093/brain/awg182 pmid:12821527

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Sahraian MA,
   3. Radue EW,
   4. Haller S, et al

   . Black holes in multiple sclerosis: definition, evolution, and clinical correlations. Acta Neurol Scand 2010;122:1–8 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2009.01221.x pmid:20003089

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Giorgio A,
   3. Stromillo ML,
   4. Bartolozzi ML, et al

   . Relevance of hypointense brain MRI lesions for long-term worsening of clinical disability in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2014;20:214–19 doi:10.1177/1352458513494490 pmid:23877971

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. van Walderveen MA,
   3. Kamphorst W,
   4. Scheltens P, et al

   . Histopathologic correlate of hypointense lesions on T1-weighted spin-echo MRI in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1998;50:1282–88 pmid:9595975

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Truyen L,
   3. van Waesberghe JH,
   4. van Walderveen MA, et al

   . Accumulation of hypointense lesions (“black holes”) on T1 spin-echo MRI correlates with disease progression in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1996;47:1469–76 pmid:8960729

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Evangelou N,
   3. Esiri MM,
   4. Smith S, et al

   . Quantitative pathological evidence for axonal loss in normal appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2000;47:391–95 pmid:10716264

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Evangelou N,
    3. Konz D,
    4. Esiri MM, et al

    . Regional axonal loss in the corpus callosum correlates with cerebral white matter lesion volume and distribution in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2000;123(pt 9):1845–49 pmid:10960048

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Sastre-Garriga J,
    3. Ingle GT,
    4. Chard DT, et al

    . Grey and white matter volume changes in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Brain 2005;128(pt 6):1454–60 doi:10.1093/brain/awh498 pmid:15817511

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Sanfilipo MP,
    3. Benedict RH,
    4. Weinstock-Guttman B, et al

    . Gray and white matter brain atrophy and neuropsychological impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2006;66:685–92 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000201238.93586.d9 pmid:16534104

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Ge Y,
    3. Grossman RI,
    4. Udupa JK, et al

    . Brain atrophy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: fractional volumetric analysis of gray matter and white matter. Radiology 2001;220:606–10 doi:10.1148/radiol.2203001776 pmid:11526256

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Fisher E,
    3. Lee JC,
    4. Nakamura K, et al

    . Gray matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. Ann Neurol 2008;64:255–65 doi:10.1002/ana.21436 pmid:18661561

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Fisniku LK,
    3. Chard DT,
    4. Jackson JS, et al

    . Gray matter atrophy is related to long-term disability in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2008;64:247–54 doi:10.1002/ana.21423 pmid:18570297

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. De Stefano N,
    3. Matthews PM,
    4. Filippi M, et al

    . Evidence of early cortical atrophy in MS: relevance to white matter changes and disability. Neurology 2003;60:1157–62 pmid:12682324

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Losseff NA,
    3. Wang L,
    4. Lai HM, et al

    . Progressive cerebral atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a serial MRI study. Brain 1996;119(pt 6):2009–19 pmid:9010005

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Keshavan A,
    3. Paul F,
    4. Beyer MK, et al

    . Power estimation for non-standardized multisite studies. Neuroimage 2016;134:281–94 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.051 pmid:27039700

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Bakshi R,
    3. Thompson AJ,
    4. Rocca MA, et al

    . MRI in multiple sclerosis: current status and future prospects. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:615–25 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70137-6 pmid:18565455

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Agartz I,
    3. Okuguwa G,
    4. Nordström M, et al

    . Reliability and reproducibility of brain tissue volumetry from segmented MR scans. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2001;251:255–61 doi:10.1007/PL00007542 pmid:11881838

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Bartzokis G,
    3. Mintz J,
    4. Marx P, et al

    . Reliability of in vivo volume measures of hippocampus and other brain structures using MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11:993–1006 doi:10.1016/0730-725X(93)90218-3 pmid:8231683

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Maclaren J,
    3. Han Z,
    4. Vos SB, et al

    . Reliability of brain volume measurements: a test-retest dataset. Sci Data 2014;1:140037 doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.37 pmid:25977792

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Morey RA,
    3. Selgrade ES,
    4. Wagner HR 2nd., et al

    . Scan-rescan reliability of subcortical brain volumes derived from automated segmentation. Hum Brain Mapp 2010;31:1751–62 doi:10.1002/hbm.2097 pmid:20162602

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Schnack HG,
    3. van Haren NE,
    4. Hulshoff Pol HE, et al

    . Reliability of brain volumes from multicenter MRI acquisition: a calibration study. Hum Brain Mapp 2004;22:312–20 doi:10.1002/hbm.20040 pmid:15202109

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Jovicich J,
    3. Marizzoni M,
    4. Sala-Llonch R, et al

    ; PharmaCog Consortium. Brain morphometry reproducibility in multi-center 3T MRI studies: a comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal segmentations. Neuroimage 2013;83:472–84 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.007 pmid:23668971

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Schnack HG,
    3. van Haren NE,
    4. Brouwer RM, et al

    . Mapping reliability in multicenter MRI: voxel-based morphometry and cortical thickness. Hum Brain Mapp 2010;31:1967–82 doi:10.1002/hbm.20991 pmid:21086550

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Cannon TD,
    3. Sun F,
    4. McEwen SJ, et al

    . Reliability of neuroanatomical measurements in a multisite longitudinal study of youth at risk for psychosis. Hum Brain Mapp 2014;35:2424–34 doi:10.1002/hbm.22338 pmid:23982962

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Eloyan A,
    3. Shou H,
    4. Shinohara R, et al

    . Health effects of lesion localization in multiple sclerosis: spatial registration and confounding adjustment. PLoS One 2014;9:e107263 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107263 pmid:25233361

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Shiee N,
    3. Bazin PL,
    4. Ozturk A, et al

    . A topology-preserving approach to the segmentation of brain images with multiple sclerosis lesions. Neuroimage 2010;49:1524–35 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.005 pmid:19766196

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Sweeney EM,
    3. Shinohara RT,
    4. Shiee N, et al

    . OASIS is Automated Statistical Inference for Segmentation, with applications to multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation in MRI. Neuroimage Clin 2013;2:402–13 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2013.03.002 pmid:24179794

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Roy S,
    3. He Q,
    4. Sweeney E, et al

    . Subject-Specific Sparse Dictionary Learning for atlas-based brain MRI segmentation. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2015;19:1598–609 doi:10.1109/JBHI.2015.2439242 pmid:26340685

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Lao Z,
    3. Shen D,
    4. Liu D, et al

    . Computer-assisted segmentation of white matter lesions in 3D MR images using support vector machine. Acad Radiol 2008;15:300–13 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2007.10.012 pmid:18280928

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    2. Patenaude B,
    3. Smith SM,
    4. Kennedy DN, et al

    . A Bayesian model of shape and appearance for subcortical brain segmentation. Neuroimage 2011;56:907–22 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.046 pmid:21352927

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    2. Huo Y,
    3. Carass A,
    4. Resnick SM, et al

    . Combining multi-atlas segmentation with brain surface estimation. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2016;9784. pii: 97840E doi:10.1117/12.2216604 pmid:27127332

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Doshi J,
    3. Erus G,
    4. Ou Y, et al

    ; Alzheimer's Neuroimaging Initiative. MUSE: MUlti-atlas region Segmentation utilizing Ensembles of registration algorithms and parameters, and locally optimal atlas selection. Neuroimage 2016;127:186–95 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.073 pmid:26679328

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016
37. 37.↵
    2. Sicotte NL,
    3. Voskuhl RR,
    4. Bouvier S, et al

    . Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2003;38:423–27 doi:10.1097/01.RLI.0000065426.07178.f1 pmid:12821856

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    2. Stankiewicz JM,
    3. Glanz BI,
    4. Healy BC, et al

    . Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2011;21:e50–56 doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2009.00449.x pmid:19888926

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    2. Chu R,
    3. Tauhid S,
    4. Glanz BI, et al

    . Whole-brain volume measured from 1.5T versus 3T MRI in healthy subjects and patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2016;26:62–67 doi:10.1111/jon.12271 pmid:26118637

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Chu R,
    3. Hurwitz S,
    4. Tauhid S, et al

    . Deep gray matter segmentation from 1.5T vs. 3T MRI in normal controls and patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2016;86(16 suppl):P4.171
41. 41.↵
    2. Gunter JL,
    3. Bernstein MA,
    4. Borowski BJ, et al

    . Measurement of MRI scanner performance with the ADNI phantom. Med Phys 2009;36:2193–205 doi:10.1118/1.3116776 pmid:19610308

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Duning T,
    3. Kloska S,
    4. Steinsträter O, et al

    . Dehydration confounds the assessment of brain atrophy. Neurology 2005;64:548–50 doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000150542.16969.CC pmid:15699394

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    2. Sampat MP,
    3. Healy BC,
    4. Meier DS, et al

    . Disease modeling in multiple sclerosis: assessment and quantification of sources of variability in brain parenchymal fraction measurements. Neuroimage 2010;52:1367–73 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.075 pmid:20362675

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. Nakamura K,
    3. Brown RA,
    4. Araujo D, et al

    . Correlation between brain volume change and T2 relaxation time induced by dehydration and rehydration: implications for monitoring atrophy in clinical studies. Neuroimage Clin 2014;6:166–70 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2014.08.014 pmid:25379428

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Nakamura K,
    3. Brown RA,
    4. Narayanan S, et al

    ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Diurnal fluctuations in brain volume: statistical analyses of MRI from large populations. Neuroimage 2015;118:126–32 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.077 pmid:26049148

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Jovicich J,
    3. Czanner S,
    4. Han X, et al

    . MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. Neuroimage 2009;46:177–92 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.010 pmid:19233293

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
47. 47.↵
    2. Kruggel F,
    3. Turner J,
    4. Muftuler LT

    ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Impact of scanner hardware and imaging protocol on image quality and compartment volume precision in the ADNI cohort. Neuroimage 2010;49:2123–33 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.006 pmid:19913626

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
48. 48.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Wolinsky JS,
    4. Comi G

    . Effects of oral glatiramer acetate on clinical and MRI-monitored disease activity in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:213–20 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70327-1 pmid:16488376

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
49. 49.↵
    2. Shinohara RT,
    3. Sweeney EM,
    4. Goldsmith J, et al

    . Statistical normalization techniques for magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage Clin 2014;6:9–19 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2014.08.008 pmid:25379412

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    2. Nyúl LG,
    3. Udupa JJ,
    4. Zhang X

    . New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization. Med Imaging IEEE Trans 2000;19:143–50 pmid:10784285

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
51. 51.↵
    2. Ghassemi R,
    3. Brown R,
    4. Narayanan S, et al

    . Normalization of white matter intensity on T1-weighted images of patients with acquired central nervous system demyelination. J Neuroimaging 2015;25:184–90 doi:10.1111/jon.12129 pmid:24942347

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    2. Fortin JP,
    3. Sweeney EM,
    4. Muschelli J, et al

    ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Removing inter-subject technical variability in magnetic resonance imaging studies. Neuroimage 2016;132:198–212 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.036 pmid:26923370

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Madabhushi A,
    3. Udupa JK

    . New methods of MR image intensity standardization via generalized scale. Med Phys 2006;33:3426–34 doi:10.1118/1.2335487 pmid:17022239

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    2. Nyúl LG,
    3. Udupa JK

    . On standardizing the MR image intensity scale. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:1072–81 pmid:10571928

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    2. Chua AS,
    3. Egorova S,
    4. Anderson MC, et al

    . Handling changes in MRI acquisition parameters in modeling whole brain lesion volume and atrophy data in multiple sclerosis subjects: comparison of linear mixed-effect models. Neuroimage Clin 2015;8:606–10 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2015.06.009 pmid:26199872

    CrossRefPubMed
56. 56.↵
    2. Leek JT,
    3. Scharpf RB,
    4. Bravo HC, et al

    . Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data. Nat Rev Genet 2010;11:733–39 doi:10.1038/nrg2825 pmid:20838408

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
57. 57.↵
    2. Fennema-Notestine C,
    3. Gamst AC,
    4. Quinn BT, et al

    . Feasibility of multi-site clinical structural neuroimaging studies of aging using legacy data. Neuroinformatics 2007;5:235–45 doi:10.1007/s12021-007-9003-9 pmid:17999200

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science