A neonatal brain MR image template of 1 week newborn.

Aya Hashioka, Syoji Kobashi, Kei Kuramoto, Yuki Wakata, Kumiko Ando, Reiichi Ishikura, Tomomoto Ishikawa, Shozo Hirota, Yutaka Hata
Author Information
  1. Aya Hashioka: Graduate School of Engineering, University of Hyogo, 2167, Shosha, Himeji, Hyogo, 671-2280, Japan.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used to detect and treat neonatal cerebral disorders. However, neonatal MR image interpretation is limited by intra- and inter-observer variability. To reduce such variability, a template-based computer-aided diagnosis system is being developed, and several methods for creating templates were evaluated.
METHOD: Spatial normalization for each individual's MR images is used to accommodate the individual variation in brain shape. Because the conventional normalization uses as adult brain template, it can be difficult to analyze the neonatal brain, as there are large difference between the adult brain and the neonatal brain. This article investigates three approaches for defining a neonatal template for 1-week-old newborns for diagnosing neonatal cerebral disorders. The first approach uses an individual neonatal head as the template. The second approach applies skull stripping to the first approach, and the third approach produces a template by averaging brain MR images of 7 neonates. To validate the approaches, the normalization accuracy was evaluated using mutual information and anatomical landmarks.
RESULTS: The experimental results of 7 neonates (revised age 5.6 ± 17.6 days) showed that normalization accuracy was significantly higher with the third approach than with the conventional adult template and the other two approaches (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Three approaches to neonatal brain template matching for spinal normalization of MRI scans were applied, demonstrating that a population average gave the best results.

References

  1. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997 Apr;16(2):187-98 [PMID: 9101328]
  2. Acta Neuropathol. 1991;82(4):239-59 [PMID: 1759558]
  3. Neuroimage. 2001 Jul;14(1 Pt 1):21-36 [PMID: 11525331]
  4. Neuroimage. 2007 Aug 15;37(2):463-73 [PMID: 17560795]
  5. Neuroimage. 2001 Dec;14(6):1238-43 [PMID: 11707080]
  6. Radiology. 1998 Aug;208(2):431-9 [PMID: 9680572]
  7. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 Jun-Jul;21(6):1099-109 [PMID: 10871022]
  8. Hum Brain Mapp. 1999;7(4):254-66 [PMID: 10408769]

MeSH Term

Brain
Brain Mapping
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Infant, Newborn
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Neonatal Screening
Nervous System Malformations
Observer Variation
Sensitivity and Specificity

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0neonatalbraintemplatenormalizationapproachMRapproachesadultMRIusedcerebraldisordersimagevariabilityevaluatedimagesindividualconventionalusesfirstthird7neonatesaccuracyresults6PURPOSE:MagneticresonanceimagingoftendetecttreatHoweverinterpretationlimitedintra-inter-observerreducetemplate-basedcomputer-aideddiagnosissystemdevelopedseveralmethodscreatingtemplatesMETHOD:Spatialindividual'saccommodatevariationshapecandifficultanalyzelargedifferencearticleinvestigatesthreedefining1-week-oldnewbornsdiagnosingheadsecondappliesskullstrippingproducesaveragingvalidateusingmutualinformationanatomicallandmarksRESULTS:experimentalrevisedage5±17daysshowedsignificantlyhighertwoP< 001CONCLUSION:Threematchingspinalscansapplieddemonstratingpopulationaveragegavebest1weeknewborn

Similar Articles

Cited By