Atlas-based analysis of cardiac shape and function: correction of regional shape bias due to imaging protocol for population studies

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Alistair A Young¹  Avan Suinesiaputra¹  Joao AC Lima⁵  Daniel C Lee³  Alan H Kadish³  J Paul Finn⁴  David A Bluemke²  Brett R Cowan¹  Pau Medrano-Gracia¹ 

[1] Department of Anatomy with Radiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, 85 Park Road, Auckland 1142, New Zealand;National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Bethesda, Maryland, USA;Feinberg Cardiovascular Research Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA;Department of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA;The Donald W. Reynolds Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

关键词: Bias correction;    Atlas;    Cardiovascular magnetic resonance;   

Others  :  805279
DOI  :  10.1186/1532-429X-15-80

 received in 2013-06-07, accepted in 2013-09-04,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cardiovascular imaging studies generate a wealth of data which is typically used only for individual study endpoints. By pooling data from multiple sources, quantitative comparisons can be made of regional wall motion abnormalities between different cohorts, enabling reuse of valuable data. Atlas-based analysis provides precise quantification of shape and motion differences between disease groups and normal subjects. However, subtle shape differences may arise due to differences in imaging protocol between studies.

Methods

A mathematical model describing regional wall motion and shape was used to establish a coordinate system registered to the cardiac anatomy. The atlas was applied to data contributed to the Cardiac Atlas Project from two independent studies which used different imaging protocols: steady state free precession (SSFP) and gradient recalled echo (GRE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Shape bias due to imaging protocol was corrected using an atlas-based transformation which was generated from a set of 46 volunteers who were imaged with both protocols.

Results

Shape bias between GRE and SSFP was regionally variable, and was effectively removed using the atlas-based transformation. Global mass and volume bias was also corrected by this method. Regional shape differences between cohorts were more statistically significant after removing regional artifacts due to imaging protocol bias.

Conclusions

Bias arising from imaging protocol can be both global and regional in nature, and is effectively corrected using an atlas-based transformation, enabling direct comparison of regional wall motion abnormalities between cohorts acquired in separate studies.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Medrano-Gracia et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pitcher A, Ashby D, Elliott P, Petersen SE. Cardiovascular MRI in clinical trials: expanded applications through novel surrogate endpoints. Heart. 2011; 97:1286-92.
• [2]Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke GL, Detrano R, Diez Roux AV, Folsom AR, Greenland P. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156:871.
• [3]Petersen SE, Matthews PM, Bamberg F, Bluemke DA, Francis JM, Friedrich MG, Leeson P, Nagel E, Plein S, Rademakers FE et al.. Imaging in population science: cardiovascular magnetic resonance in 100,000 participants of UK Biobank - rationale, challenges and approaches. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013; 15:46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Oishi K, Faria A, Jiang H, Li X, Akhter K, Zhang J, Hsu JT, Miller MI, Van Zijl P, Albert M. Atlas-based whole brain white matter analysis using large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping: application to normal elderly and Alzheimer’s disease participants. Neuroimage. 2009; 46:486-99.
• [5]Thompson PM, Mega MS, Woods RP, Zoumalan CI, Lindshield CJ, Blanton RE, Moussai J, Holmes CJ, Cummings JL, Toga AW. Cortical change in Alzheimer’s disease detected with a disease-specific population-based brain atlas. Cereb Cortex. 2001; 11:1-16.
• [6]Young AA, Frangi AF. Computational cardiac atlases: from patient to population and back. Exp Physiol. 2009; 94:578-96.
• [7]Lewandowski AJ, Augustine D, Lamata P, Davis EF, Lazdam M, Francis J, McCormick K, Wilkinson AR, Singhal A, Lucas A et al.. Preterm heart in adult life: cardiovascular magnetic resonance reveals distinct differences in left ventricular mass, geometry, and function. Circulation. 2013; 127:197-206.
• [8]Fonseca CG, Backhaus M, Bluemke DA, Britten R, Chung JD, Cowan BR, Dinov I, Finn JP, Hunter PJ, Kadish AH et al.. The cardiac Atlas project – an imaging database for computational modeling and statistical Atlases of the heart. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27:2288-95.
• [9]Kadish AH, Bello D, Finn JP, Bonow RO, Schaechter A, Subacius H, Albert C, Daubert JP, Fonseca CG, Goldberger JJ. Rationale and design for the defibrillators to reduce risk by magnetic resonance imaging evaluation (DETERMINE) trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009; 20:982-87.
• [10]Malayeri AA, Johnson WC, Macedo R, Bathon J, Lima JAC, Bluemke DA. Cardiac cine MRI: quantification of the relationship between fast gradient echo and steady-state free precession for determination of myocardial mass and volumes. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28:60.
• [11]Young AA, Cowan BR, Thrupp SF, Hedley WJ, Dell’Italia LJ. Left ventricular mass and volume: fast calculation with guide-point modeling on MR images. Radiology. 2000; 216:597.
• [12]Li B, Liu Y, Occleshaw CJ, Cowan BR, Young AA. In-line automated tracking for ventricular function with magnetic resonance imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010; 3:860-66.
• [13]Young AA, Crossman DJ, Ruygrok PN, Cannell MB. Mapping system for coregistration of cardiac MRI and ex vivo tissue sampling. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 34:1065-71.
• [14]Anderson T, Darling DA. A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat Assoc. 1954; 49:765-69.
• [15]Aldrich J. RA Fisher and the making of maximum likelihood 1912–1922. Statistical Science. 1997; 12:162-76.
• [16]Ortiz-Pérez JT, Rodríguez J, Meyers SN, Lee DC, Davidson C, Wu E. Correspondence between the 17-segment model and coronary arterial anatomy using contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008; 1:282-93.
• [17]Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, Pennell DJ, Rumberger JA, Ryan T, Verani MS. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart a statement for healthcare professionals from the cardiac imaging committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002; 105:539-42.
• [18]Dryden I, Mardia K. Statistical analysis of shape. Chichester: Wiley; 1998.
• [19]Miller M, Banerjee A, Christensen G, Joshi S, Khaneja N, Grenander U, Matejic L. Statistical methods in computational anatomy. Stat Methods Med Res. 1997; 6:267-99.
• [20]Joshi S, Davis B, Jomier M, Gerig G. Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for computational anatomy. Neuroimage. 2004; 23:S151-60.
• [21]Fonov V, Evans AC, Botteron K, Almli CR, McKinstry RC, Collins DL. Unbiased average age-appropriate atlases for pediatric studies. Neuroimage. 2011; 54:313-27.
• [22]Liao S, Jia H, Wu G, Shen D. A novel framework for longitudinal atlas construction with groupwise registration of subject image sequences. Neuroimage. 2012; 59:1275-89.
• [23]Tobon-Gomez C, Sukno FM, Bijnens BH, Huguet M, Frangi AF. Realistic simulation of cardiac magnetic resonance studies modeling anatomical variability, trabeculae, and papillary muscles. Magn Reson Med. 2011; 65:280-88.