Effect of in-painting on cortical thickness measurements in multiple sclerosis: A large cohort study

A comprehensive analysis of the effect of lesion in‐painting on the estimation of cortical thickness using magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a large cohort of 918 relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis patients who participated in a phase III multicenter clinical trial. An automatic lesion...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHuman brain mapping Vol. 36; no. 10; pp. 3749 - 3760
Main Authors Govindarajan, Koushik A., Datta, Sushmita, Hasan, Khader M., Choi, Sangbum, Rahbar, Mohammad H, Cofield, Stacey S., Cutter, Gary R., Lublin, Fred D., Wolinsky, Jerry S., Narayana, Ponnada A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2015
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1065-9471
1097-0193
1097-0193
DOI10.1002/hbm.22875

Cover

More Information
Summary:A comprehensive analysis of the effect of lesion in‐painting on the estimation of cortical thickness using magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a large cohort of 918 relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis patients who participated in a phase III multicenter clinical trial. An automatic lesion in‐painting algorithm was developed and implemented. Cortical thickness was measured using the FreeSurfer pipeline with and without in‐painting. The effect of in‐painting was evaluated using FreeSurfer's paired analysis pipeline. Multivariate regression analysis was also performed with field strength and lesion load as additional factors. Overall, the estimated cortical thickness was different with in‐painting than without. The effect of in‐painting was observed to be region dependent, more significant in the left hemisphere compared to the right, was more prominent at 1.5 T relative to 3 T, and was greater at higher lesion volumes. Our results show that even for data acquired at 1.5 T in patients with high lesion load, the mean cortical thickness difference with and without in‐painting is ∼2%. Based on these results, it appears that in‐painting has only a small effect on the estimated regional and global cortical thickness. Hum Brain Mapp 36:3749–3760, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Bibliography:NINDS/NIH (CombiRx trial) - No. U01 NS045719
istex:3713FF85D9D2C2267A74491A2859E2EA48B5A64C
NIBIB/NIH (Image segmentation) - No. 2 R01 EB02095
ArticleID:HBM22875
ark:/67375/WNG-SKX3LXX5-D
NINDS/NIH - No. R01NS078244
CombiRx Investigators Group: M. Agius, Sacramento, CA; K. Bashir, Birmingham, AL; R. Baumhefner, Los Angeles, CA; G. Birnbaum, Golden Valley, MN; G. Blevins, Edmonton, AB, Canada; R. Bomprezzi, Phoenix, AZ; A. Boster, Columbus, OH; T. Brown, Kirkland, WA; J. Burkholder, Canton, OH; A. Camac, Lexington, MA; D. Campagnolo, Phoenix, AZ; J. Carter, Scottsdale, AZ; B. Cohen, Chicago, IL; J. Cooper, Berkeley, CA; J. Corboy, Aurora, CO; A. Cross, Saint Louis, MO; L. Dewitt, Salt Lake City, UT; J. Dunn, Kirkland, WA; K. Edwards, Latham, NY; E. Eggenberger, East Lansing, MI; J. English, Atlanta, GA; W. Felton, Richmond, VA; P. Fodor, Colorado Springs, CO; C. Ford, Albuquerque, NM; M. Freedman, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; S. Galetta, Philadelphia, PA; G. Garmany, Boulder, CO; A. Goodman, Rochester, NY; M. Gottesman, Mineola, NY; C. Gottschalk, New Haven, CT; M. Gruental, Albany, NY; M. Gudesblatt, Patchogue, NY; R. Hamill, Burlington, VT; J. Herbert, New York, NY; R. Holub, Albany, NY; W. Honeycutt, Maitland, FL; B. Hughes, Des Moines, IA; G. Hutton, Houston, TX; D. Jacobs, Philadelphia, PA; K. Johnson, Baltimore, MD; L. Kasper, Lebanon, NH; J. Kattah, Peoria, IL; M. Kaufman, Charlotte, NC; M. Keegan, Rochester, NY; O. Khan, Detroit, MI; B. Khatri, Milwaukee, WI; M. Kita, Seattle, WA; B. Koffman, Toledo, OH; E. Lallana, Lebanon, NH; N. Lava, Albany, NY; J. Lindsey, Houston, TX; P. Loge, Billings, MT; S. Lynch, Kansas City, KS; F. McGee, Richmond, VA; L. Mejico, Syracuse, NY; L. Metz, Calgary, AB, Canada; P. O'Connor, Toronto, ON, Canada; K. Pandey, Albany, NY; H. Panitch, Burlington, VT; J. Preiningerova, New Haven, CT; K. Rammohan, Columbus, OH; C. Riley, New Haven, CT; P. Riskind, Worcester, MA; L. Rolak, Marshfield, WI; W. Royal, Baltimore, MD; S. Scarberry, Fargo, ND; A. Schulman, Richmond, VA; T. Scott, Pittsburgh, PA; C. Sheppard, Uniontown, OH; W. Sheremata, Miami, FL; L. Stone, Cleveland, OH; W. Stuart, Atlanta, GA; S. Subramaniam, Nashville, TN; V. Thadani, Lebanon, NH; F. Thomas, Saint Louis, MO; B. Thrower, Atlanta, GA; M. Tullman, New York, NY; A. Turel, Danville, PA; T. Vollmer, Phoenix, AZ; S. Waldman, La Habra, CA; B. Weinstock‐Guttman, Buffalo, NY; J. Wendt, Tucson, AZ; R. Williams, Billings, MT; D. Wynn, Northbrook, IL; M. Yeung, Calgary, AB Canada.
Koushik A. Govindarajan and Sushmita Datta contributed equally to this work.
MRI Analysis Center: JS Wolinsky, PA Narayana, F Nelson, I Vainrub, S Datta, R He, B Gates, K Ton.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1065-9471
1097-0193
1097-0193
DOI:10.1002/hbm.22875