Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical adaptation of synthetic MRI-based whole brain volume segmentation in children at 3 T: comparison with modified SPM segmentation methods

  • Paediatric Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To validate the use of synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (SyMRI) volumetry by comparing with child-optimized SPM 12 volumetry in 3 T pediatric neuroimaging.

Methods

In total, 106 children aged 4.7–18.7 years who underwent both synthetic and 3D T1-weighted imaging and had no abnormal imaging/neurologic findings were included for the SyMRI vs. SPM T1-only segmentation (SPM T1). Forty of the 106 children who underwent an additional 3D T2-weighted imaging were included for the SyMRI vs. SPM multispectral segmentation (SPM multi). SPM segmentation using an age-appropriate atlas and inverse-transforming template-space intracranial mask was compared with SyMRI segmentation. Volume differences between SyMRI and SPM T1 were plotted against age to evaluate the influence of age on volume difference.

Results

Measurements derived from SyMRI and two SPM methods showed excellent agreements and strong correlations except for the CSF volume (CSFV) (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.87–0.98; r = 0.78–0.96; relative volume difference other than CSFV = 6.8–18.5% [SyMRI vs. SPM T1] and 11.3–22.7% [SyMRI vs. SPM multi]). Dice coefficients of all brain tissues (except CSF) were in the range 0.78–0.91. The Bland–Altman plot and age-related volume difference change suggested that the volume differences between the two methods were influenced by the volume of each brain tissue and subject’s age (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

SyMRI and SPM segmentation results were consistent except for CSFV, which supports routine clinical use of SyMRI-based volumetry in pediatric neuroimaging. However, caution should be taken in the interpretation of the CSF segmentation results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fischl B (2012) FreeSurfer. Neuroimage 62:774–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Smith SM (2012) Fsl. Neuroimage 62:782–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashburner J (2012) SPM: a history. Neuroimage 62:791–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. West J, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2012) Novel whole brain segmentation and volume estimation using quantitative MRI. Eur Radiol 22:998–1007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Warntjes JB, Leinhard OD, West J, Lundberg P (2008) Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 60:320–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ji S, Yang D, Lee J, Choi SH, Kim H, Kang KM (2020) Synthetic MRI: technologies and applications in neuroradiology. J Magn Reson Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27440

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Goncalves FG, Serai SD, Zuccoli G (2018) Synthetic brain MRI: review of current concepts and future directions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 27:387–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. West J, Blystad I, Engstrom M, Warntjes JB, Lundberg P (2013) Application of quantitative MRI for brain tissue segmentation at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths. PLoS One 8:e74795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vagberg M, Lindqvist T, Ambarki K et al (2013) Automated determination of brain parenchymal fraction in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:498–504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagiwara A, Hori M, Cohen-Adad J et al (2019) Linearity, bias, intrascanner repeatability, and interscanner reproducibility of quantitative multidynamic multiecho sequence for rapid simultaneous relaxometry at 3 T: a validation study with a standardized phantom and healthy controls. Invest Radiol 54:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Granberg T, Uppman M, Hashim F et al (2016) Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1023–1029

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ambarki K, Lindqvist T, Wahlin A et al (2012) Evaluation of automatic measurement of the intracranial volume based on quantitative MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1951–1956

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McAllister A, Leach J, West H, Jones B, Zhang B, Serai S (2017) Quantitative synthetic MRI in children: normative intracranial tissue segmentation values during development. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:2364–2372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Serai SD, Dudley J, Leach JL (2019) Comparison of whole brain segmentation and volume estimation in children and young adults using SPM and SyMRI. Clin Imaging 57:77–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim HG, Moon WJ, Han J, Choi JW (2017) Quantification of myelin in children using multiparametric quantitative MRI: a pilot study. Neuroradiology 59:1043–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hedman AM, van Haren NE, Schnack HG, Kahn RS, Hulshoff Pol HE (2012) Human brain changes across the life span: a review of 56 longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp 33:1987–2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SM, Choi YH, You SK et al (2018) Age-related changes in tissue value properties in children: simultaneous quantification of relaxation times and proton density using synthetic magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 53:236–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Andica C, Hagiwara A, Hori M et al (2019) Review of synthetic MRI in pediatric brains: basic principle of MR quantification, its features, clinical applications, and limitations. J Neuroradiol 46:268–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heinen R, Bouvy WH, Mendrik AM, Viergever MA, Biessels GJ, de Bresser J (2016) Robustness of automated methods for brain volume measurements across different MRI field strengths. PLoS One 11:e0165719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansen TI, Brezova V, Eikenes L, Haberg A, Vangberg TR (2015) How does the accuracy of intracranial volume measurements affect normalized brain volumes? Sample size estimates based on 966 subjects from the HUNT MRI cohort. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1450–1456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Keihaninejad S, Heckemann RA, Fagiolo G et al (2010) A robust method to estimate the intracranial volume across MRI field strengths (1.5T and 3T). Neuroimage 50:1427–1437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Malone IB, Leung KK, Clegg S et al (2015) Accurate automatic estimation of total intracranial volume: a nuisance variable with less nuisance. Neuroimage 104:366–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lindig T, Kotikalapudi R, Schweikardt D et al (2018) Evaluation of multimodal segmentation based on 3D T1-, T2- and FLAIR-weighted images - the difficulty of choosing. Neuroimage 170:210–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kotikalapudi R, Martin P, Marquetand J, Lindig T, Bender B, Focke NK (2018) Systematic assessment of multispectral voxel-based morphometry in previously MRI-negative focal epilepsy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39:2014–2021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Evans AC, Brain Development Cooperative G (2006) The NIH MRI study of normal brain development. Neuroimage 30:184–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilke M, Holland SK, Altaye M, Gaser C (2008) Template-O-Matic: a toolbox for creating customized pediatric templates. Neuroimage 41:903–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Biffen SC, Warton CMR, Dodge NC et al (2020) Validity of automated FreeSurfer segmentation compared to manual tracing in detecting prenatal alcohol exposure-related subcortical and corpus callosal alterations in 9- to 11-year-old children. Neuroimage Clin 28:102368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guenette JP, Stern RA, Tripodis Y et al (2018) Automated versus manual segmentation of brain region volumes in former football players. Neuroimage Clin 18:888–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Andica C, Hagiwara A, Hori M et al (2018) Automated brain tissue and myelin volumetry based on quantitative MR imaging with various in-plane resolutions. J Neuroradiol 45:164–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Saccenti L, Andica C, Hagiwara A et al (2019) Brain tissue and myelin volumetric analysis in multiple sclerosis at 3T MRI with various in-plane resolutions using synthetic MRI. Neuroradiology 61:1219–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zijdenbos AP, Dawant BM, Margolin RA, Palmer AC (1994) Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13:716–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nordenskjold R, Malmberg F, Larsson EM et al (2013) Intracranial volume estimated with commonly used methods could introduce bias in studies including brain volume measurements. Neuroimage 83:355–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Phan TV, Smeets D, Talcott JB, Vandermosten M (2018) Processing of structural neuroimaging data in young children: bridging the gap between current practice and state-of-the-art methods. Dev Cogn Neurosci 33:206–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mills KL, Tamnes CK (2014) Methods and considerations for longitudinal structural brain imaging analysis across development. Dev Cogn Neurosci 9:172–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sung Won Youn and Ho Kyun Kim of Catholic University of Daegu Medical School for technical assistance.

Funding

The study was supported by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1C1B5075974).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea

    So Mi Lee, Myong-Hun Hahm, Seung Hyun Cho, Won Hwa Kim, Hye Jung Kim, Kyung Min Shin & Byunggeon Park

  2. Department of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, South Korea

    So Mi Lee, Myong-Hun Hahm, Seung Hyun Cho, Won Hwa Kim, Hye Jung Kim, Kyung Min Shin & Byunggeon Park

  3. Department of Medical & Biological Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea

    Eunji Kim

  4. Department of Radiology, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea

    Sun Kyoung You

  5. Department of Radiology and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Anyangcheon-Ro, 1071, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 07985, South Korea

    Hyun-Hae Cho

  6. General Electric (GE) Healthcare Korea, Seoul, South Korea

    Moon Jung Hwang

  7. Department of Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 130 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 41944, South Korea

    Yongmin Chang

Authors
  1. So Mi Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eunji Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sun Kyoung You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hyun-Hae Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moon Jung Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Myong-Hun Hahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Seung Hyun Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Won Hwa Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hye Jung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kyung Min Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Byunggeon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yongmin Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yongmin Chang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

For this type of retrospective study, formal consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 406 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, S.M., Kim, E., You, S.K. et al. Clinical adaptation of synthetic MRI-based whole brain volume segmentation in children at 3 T: comparison with modified SPM segmentation methods. Neuroradiology 64, 381–392 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02779-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02779-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation