The Impact of Lesion In-Painting and Registration Methods on Voxel-Based Morphometry in Detecting Regional Cerebral Gray Matter Atrophy in Multiple Sclerosis

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Pirko I,
   2. Lucchinetti CF,
   3. Sriram S,
   4. et al

   . Gray matter involvement in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2007; 68: 634– 42

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Ashburner J,
   2. Friston KJ

   . Voxel-based morphometry: the methods. Neuroimage 2000; 11: 805– 21

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Ceccarelli A,
   2. Rocca MA,
   3. Pagani E,
   4. et al

   . A voxel-based morphometry study of grey matter loss in MS patients with different clinical phenotypes. Neuroimage 2008; 42: 315– 22

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Riccitelli G,
   2. Rocca MA,
   3. Pagani E,
   4. et al

   . Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis is associated to different patterns of gray matter atrophy according to clinical phenotype. Hum Brain Mapp 2011; 32: 1535– 43

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Bookstein FL

   . “Voxel-based morphometry” should not be used with imperfectly registered images. Neuroimage 2001; 14: 1454– 62

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Fein G,
   2. Landman B,
   3. Tran H,
   4. et al

   . Statistical parametric mapping of brain morphology: sensitivity is dramatically increased by using brain-extracted images as inputs. Neuroimage 2006; 30: 1187– 95

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Acosta-Cabronero J,
   2. Williams GB,
   3. Pereira JM,
   4. et al

   . The impact of skull-stripping and radio-frequency bias correction on grey-matter segmentation for voxel-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2008; 39: 1654– 65

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Pereira JM,
   2. Xiong L,
   3. Acosta-Cabronero J,
   4. et al

   . Registration accuracy for VBM studies varies according to region and degenerative disease grouping. Neuroimage 2010; 49: 2205– 15

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Tardif CL,
   2. Collins DL,
   3. Pike GB

   . Sensitivity of voxel-based morphometry analysis to choice of imaging protocol at 3 T. Neuroimage 2009; 44: 827– 38

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Tardif CL,
    2. Collins DL,
    3. Pike GB

    . Regional impact of field strength on voxel-based morphometry results. Hum Brain Mapp 2010; 31: 943– 57

    PubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Sdika M,
    2. Pelletier D

    . Nonrigid registration of multiple sclerosis brain images using lesion inpainting for morphometry or lesion mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30: 1060– 67

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Chard DT,
    2. Jackson JS,
    3. Miller DH,
    4. et al

    . Reducing the impact of white matter lesions on automated measures of brain gray and white matter volumes. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32: 223– 28

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Jackson J,
    2. Chard D,
    3. Dell'Oglio E,
    4. et al

    . Cerebral white and gray matter MRI segmentation with lesion in-painting in multiple sclerosis: 2010 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology—Toranto, Canada. Neurology 2010; 74: 237
14. 14.↵
    1. Ridgway GR,
    2. Henley SM,
    3. Rohrer JD,
    4. et al

    . Ten simple rules for reporting voxel-based morphometry studies. Neuroimage 2008; 40: 1429– 35

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Ridgway GR,
    2. Omar R,
    3. Ourselin S,
    4. et al

    . Issues with threshold masking in voxel-based morphometry of atrophied brains. Neuroimage 2009; 44: 99– 111

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Henley SM,
    2. Ridgway GR,
    3. Scahill RI,
    4. et al

    . Pitfalls in the use of voxel-based morphometry as a biomarker: examples from Huntington disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31: 711– 19

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Ashburner J

    . A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 2007; 38: 95– 113

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Ashburner J,
    2. Friston KJ

    . Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005; 26: 839– 51

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Klein A,
    2. Andersson J,
    3. Ardekani BA,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration. Neuroimage 2009; 46: 786– 802

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Yassa MA,
    2. Stark CE

    . A quantitative evaluation of cross-participant registration techniques for MRI studies of the medial temporal lobe. Neuroimage 2009; 44: 319– 27

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Bergouignan L,
    2. Chupin M,
    3. Czechowska Y,
    4. et al

    . Can voxel based morphometry, manual segmentation and automated segmentation equally detect hippocampal volume differences in acute depression? Neuroimage 2009; 45: 29– 37

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. McLaren DG,
    2. Kosmatka KJ,
    3. Kastman EK,
    4. et al

    . Rhesus macaque brain morphometry: a methodological comparison of voxel-wise approaches. Methods 2010; 50: 157– 65

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Takahashi R,
    2. Ishii K,
    3. Miyamoto N,
    4. et al

    . Measurement of gray and white matter atrophy in dementia with Lewy bodies using diffeomorphic anatomic registration through exponentiated lie algebra: a comparison with conventional voxel-based morphometry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31: 1873– 78

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Kurtzke JF

    . Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444– 52

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Polman CH,
    2. Reingold SC,
    3. Edan G,
    4. et al

    . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria.” Ann Neurol 2005; 58: 840– 46

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Deichmann R,
    2. Schwarzbauer C,
    3. Turner R

    . Optimisation of the 3D MDEFT sequence for anatomical brain imaging: technical implications at 1.5 and 3 T. Neuroimage 2004; 21: 757– 67

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Stankiewicz JM,
    2. Glanz BI,
    3. Healy BC,
    4. et al

    . Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2011; 21: e50– 56

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Bakshi R,
    2. Neema M,
    3. Healy BC,
    4. et al

    . Predicting clinical progression in multiple sclerosis with the magnetic resonance disease severity scale. Arch Neurol 2008; 65: 1449– 53

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Tahmasebi AM,
    2. Abolmaesumi P,
    3. Zheng ZZ,
    4. et al

    . Reducing inter-subject anatomical variation: effect of normalization method on sensitivity of functional magnetic resonance imaging data analysis in auditory cortex and the superior temporal region. Neuroimage 2009; 47: 1522– 31

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Karacali B,
    2. Davatzikos C

    . Simulation of tissue atrophy using a topology preserving transformation model. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006; 25: 649– 52

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Li W,
    2. He H,
    3. Lu J,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of multiple voxel-based morphometry approaches and applications in the analysis of white matter changes in temporal lobe epilepsy. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Medical Imaging and Augmented Reality, Bejiing, China. September 19– 20, 2010
32. 32.↵
    1. Salmond CH,
    2. Ashburner J,
    3. Vargha-Khadem F,
    4. et al

    . Distributional assumptions in voxel-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2002; 17: 1027– 30

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    1. Sailer M,
    2. Fischl B,
    3. Salat D,
    4. et al

    . Focal thinning of the cerebral cortex in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2003; 126: 1734– 44

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Battaglini M,
    2. Giorgio A,
    3. Stromillo ML,
    4. et al

    . Voxel-wise assessment of progression of regional brain atrophy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2009; 282: 55– 60

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Sicotte NL,
    2. Kern KC,
    3. Giesser BS,
    4. et al

    . Regional hippocampal atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008; 131: 1134– 41

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Charil A,
    2. Dagher A,
    3. Lerch JP,
    4. et al

    . Focal cortical atrophy in multiple sclerosis: relation to lesion load and disability. Neuroimage 2007; 34: 509– 17

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    1. Calabrese M,
    2. Rinaldi F,
    3. Mattisi I,
    4. et al

    . The predictive value of gray matter atrophy in clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology 2011; 77: 257– 63

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Yeh EA,
    2. Weinstock-Guttman B,
    3. Ramanathan M,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of children and adults with paediatric-onset multiple sclerosis. Brain 2009; 132 (pt 12): 3392– 400

    Abstract/FREE Full Text