<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Yakushev, Igor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:igor.yakushev@uni-mainz.de" target="_blank">igor.yakushev@uni-mainz.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I wonder if there is any empirical evidence about impact of white matter lesions (WML) on accuracy of fiber tracking? The following questions are of specific interest:<br>
<br>
1) what is the (at least expected) range of FA-values in a WML? Can FA-values within a WML (at least a proportion of voxels) be still within the range typical for "normal" WM?<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>> I think it depends. If the lesion is severe like stroke or some MS lesions, it is filled with fluid. So, FA could be as low as CSF. I think we can't make a generalized comment. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
2) To what extent can one exclude/minimize impact of WML on performance of FACT (in a specific brain region) by simply adjusting the FA-threshold?<br></blockquote><div><br>> Lesion means FA decrease. Then it definitely affect FACT results. FACT is dependent on FA. If FA gets lower than FACT-FA threshold, you don't get a tract. Even if you get a tract, FA decrease could lead to higher uncertainty in eigenvectors. Then tracking through lesion could be more affected by noise. <br>
> In one sense, the high sensitivity of FACT to lesion is good because it can detect lesion (although you may not need to do FACT to identify lesions).<br>> but in most case, the high sensitivity is not desirable. That is why we tested an atlas-based approach (<span><span title="NeuroImage">Neuroimage</span>.
2008 Jan 1;39(1):336-47), if you are interested in MRI-parameter (e.g. FA, MD, diffusivity, T2) along a tract of your interest<br>> If you are interested in tract anatomy itself under the existence of lesions, then the atlas-based approach won't work. <br>
> One possible way to minimize the effect is to use multiple ROIs to increase the anatomical constraint and lower FA threshold. In this way, FACT results become less sensitive to FA decrease.<br></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
3) In other words, if one tracts a specific fiber bundle within the brain with a pronounced vascular encephalopathy (VE) at a common FA-threshold of 0.2, and the resulting track looks fine, i.e. not worse as in a subject without any VE, can one conclude that there was just no WML over the course of this particular track and tracking is likely to be not biased by VE in this subject?<br>
<br></blockquote><div>> It is in general difficult to use tractography for quantitative purpose, but there are two types of information you can get; morphological parameters and pixel intensity parameters. For morphology, we are talking about the shape and size of the tracts. You can count the number of pixels occupied by the streamlines and call it tract volume. The shapes and trajectories are more difficult to quantify, but maybe you can do group analysis by normalizing the tract coordinates from the control and patient groups and compare. For the pixel intensity, you can measure, for example, FA of the tracts using DtiStudio.<br>
> It is therefore very important to understand if you want to know the morphology or intensity. In your case, you mentioned "tract looks fine", meaning you didn't see much morphological differences such as thinner or more curved. Then when you asked, "can one conclude that there was just no WML". Then here it seems you are asking more of pixel intensity because WML may cause FA drops and T2 increase, for example. Then you need to quantify FA values of the pixels occupied by the tract. You may find that FA of a portion of the trajectory is actually lower.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
4) Let's lower the FA-threshold down to 0.05, repeat the above analysis and consider two possible outcomes: a) fiber tracking in the VE+ subject produced considerably less fibers than in the VE- subject; b) fiber tracking produced the same results in both subject. Can one now conclude that tracking of this particular bundle is a) biased b) not biased by VE, respectively?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>> Another inherent complication of tractography-based analysis is the coupling of the morphology and pixel intensity (FA). Suppose you have a cluster of pixels with low FA due to WML. Also assume that there is no change in tract size. If you do fiber tracking with FA>0.2, you may get smaller tracts in patients with WML simply because of the FA threshold. Then the result suggests there is a morphological change (the tract is smaller) in the patient, but the truth is FA drop.This is a common problem of many MRI-based study. We are observing signals from water and the entire brain information is contracted to mere tens of megabytes. We can do nice quantitative analysis of the images but interpretation is not always straightforward. <br>
> As you mentioned, you can approach the data from multiple angles, like changing the FA threshold. If the tract is thinner with FA>0.2 but not thinner with FA>0.05, then it may suggest that the tract is actually there with the normal size and the FA>0.05 results would yield lower FA values in the pixels within WML, which is the answer closer to the truth. This would certainly deepen your understanding of the pathology.<br>
> Tractography is just one way to probe the data and I would suggest you always combine it with other tools such as manual ROI and pixel-based SPM-type analysis. Recently we are using atlas-based analysis (see papers by K. Oishi et al). All these approaches looks at the same data with different angles. It is very difficult to come to a right conclusion with just one method. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Igor<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
******************************<br>
<br>
Igor Yakushev, MD<br>
<br>
Department of Psychiatry<br>
<br>
University Medical Center Mainz<br>
<br>
Mainz, Germany<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Mristudio-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Mristudio-users@mristudio.org" target="_blank">Mristudio-users@mristudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>
Unsubscribe, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:Mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org" target="_blank">Mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>