Comparative study of standard space and real space analysis of quantitative MR brain data

Benjamin S Aribisala, Jiabao He, Andrew M Blamire

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose:
To compare the robustness of region of interest (ROI) analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain data in real space with analysis in standard space and to test the hypothesis that standard space image analysis introduces more partial volume effect errors compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space.

Materials and Methods:
Twenty healthy adults with no history or evidence of neurological diseases were recruited; high-resolution T1-weighted, quantitative T1, and B0 field-map measurements were collected. Algorithms were implemented to perform analysis in real and standard space and used to apply a simple standard ROI template to quantitative T1 datasets. Regional relaxation values and histograms for both gray and white matter tissues classes were then extracted and compared.

Results:
Regional mean T1 values for both gray and white matter were significantly lower using real space compared to standard space analysis. Additionally, regional T1 histograms were more compact in real space, with smaller right-sided tails indicating lower partial volume errors compared to standard space analysis.

Conclusion:
Standard space analysis of quantitative MRI brain data introduces more partial volume effect errors biasing the analysis of quantitative data compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;33:1503–1509. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1503-1509
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume33
Issue number6
Early online date17 May 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Brain
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
History
Datasets
White Matter
Gray Matter

Keywords

  • automatic regional analysis
  • real space
  • standard space
  • partial volume effects

Cite this

Comparative study of standard space and real space analysis of quantitative MR brain data. / Aribisala, Benjamin S; He, Jiabao; Blamire, Andrew M.

In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 33, No. 6, 06.2011, p. 1503-1509.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2441be889e22484f86d3c681614622df,
title = "Comparative study of standard space and real space analysis of quantitative MR brain data",
abstract = "Purpose:To compare the robustness of region of interest (ROI) analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain data in real space with analysis in standard space and to test the hypothesis that standard space image analysis introduces more partial volume effect errors compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space.Materials and Methods:Twenty healthy adults with no history or evidence of neurological diseases were recruited; high-resolution T1-weighted, quantitative T1, and B0 field-map measurements were collected. Algorithms were implemented to perform analysis in real and standard space and used to apply a simple standard ROI template to quantitative T1 datasets. Regional relaxation values and histograms for both gray and white matter tissues classes were then extracted and compared.Results:Regional mean T1 values for both gray and white matter were significantly lower using real space compared to standard space analysis. Additionally, regional T1 histograms were more compact in real space, with smaller right-sided tails indicating lower partial volume errors compared to standard space analysis.Conclusion:Standard space analysis of quantitative MRI brain data introduces more partial volume effect errors biasing the analysis of quantitative data compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;33:1503–1509. {\circledC} 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.",
keywords = "automatic regional analysis, real space, standard space, partial volume effects",
author = "Aribisala, {Benjamin S} and Jiabao He and Blamire, {Andrew M}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1002/jmri.22576",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "1503--1509",
journal = "Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "1053-1807",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative study of standard space and real space analysis of quantitative MR brain data

AU - Aribisala, Benjamin S

AU - He, Jiabao

AU - Blamire, Andrew M

N1 - Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Purpose:To compare the robustness of region of interest (ROI) analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain data in real space with analysis in standard space and to test the hypothesis that standard space image analysis introduces more partial volume effect errors compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space.Materials and Methods:Twenty healthy adults with no history or evidence of neurological diseases were recruited; high-resolution T1-weighted, quantitative T1, and B0 field-map measurements were collected. Algorithms were implemented to perform analysis in real and standard space and used to apply a simple standard ROI template to quantitative T1 datasets. Regional relaxation values and histograms for both gray and white matter tissues classes were then extracted and compared.Results:Regional mean T1 values for both gray and white matter were significantly lower using real space compared to standard space analysis. Additionally, regional T1 histograms were more compact in real space, with smaller right-sided tails indicating lower partial volume errors compared to standard space analysis.Conclusion:Standard space analysis of quantitative MRI brain data introduces more partial volume effect errors biasing the analysis of quantitative data compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;33:1503–1509. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

AB - Purpose:To compare the robustness of region of interest (ROI) analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain data in real space with analysis in standard space and to test the hypothesis that standard space image analysis introduces more partial volume effect errors compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space.Materials and Methods:Twenty healthy adults with no history or evidence of neurological diseases were recruited; high-resolution T1-weighted, quantitative T1, and B0 field-map measurements were collected. Algorithms were implemented to perform analysis in real and standard space and used to apply a simple standard ROI template to quantitative T1 datasets. Regional relaxation values and histograms for both gray and white matter tissues classes were then extracted and compared.Results:Regional mean T1 values for both gray and white matter were significantly lower using real space compared to standard space analysis. Additionally, regional T1 histograms were more compact in real space, with smaller right-sided tails indicating lower partial volume errors compared to standard space analysis.Conclusion:Standard space analysis of quantitative MRI brain data introduces more partial volume effect errors biasing the analysis of quantitative data compared to analysis of the same dataset in real space. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;33:1503–1509. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

KW - automatic regional analysis

KW - real space

KW - standard space

KW - partial volume effects

U2 - 10.1002/jmri.22576

DO - 10.1002/jmri.22576

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1503

EP - 1509

JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 1053-1807

IS - 6

ER -