Identifying errors in Freesurfer automated skull stripping and the incremental utility of manual intervention.

Quality assurance (QA) is vital for ensuring the integrity of processed neuroimaging data for use in clinical neurosciences research. Manual QA (visual inspection) of processed brains for cortical surface reconstruction errors is resource-intensive, particularly with large datasets. Several semi-aut...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Brain Imaging & Behavior Vol. 13; no. 5; pp. 1281 - 1292
Autores principales: Waters, Abigail B., Mace, Ryan A., Sawyer, Kayle S., Gansler, David A.
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Oct2019
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=138504747&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 138504747
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        19317557
        3GSC
      jtl: Brain Imaging & Behavior
      issn: 19317557
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2019
      vid: 13
      iid: 5
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        138504747
        138504747
        143924899
        NLM30145718
        10.1007/s11682-018-9951-8
        NLM30145718
        138504747
      ppf: 1281
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Identifying errors in Freesurfer automated skull stripping and the incremental utility of manual intervention.
      aug:
        au:
          Waters, Abigail B.
          Mace, Ryan A.
          Sawyer, Kayle S.
          Gansler, David A.
        affil: Department of Psychology, Suffolk University, 73 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Brain Anatomy and Histology
          Software
          Image Processing, Computer Assisted
          Magnetic Resonance Imaging
          Adult
          Male
          Middle Age
          Neuroradiography
          Female
          Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index
          Scales
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: Quality assurance (QA) is vital for ensuring the integrity of processed neuroimaging data for use in clinical neurosciences research. Manual QA (visual inspection) of processed brains for cortical surface reconstruction errors is resource-intensive, particularly with large datasets. Several semi-automated QA tools use quantitative detection of subjects for editing based on outlier brain regions. There were two project goals: (1) evaluate the assumption that statistical outliers are related to errors of cortical extension, and (2) examine whether error identification and correction significantly impacts estimation of cortical parameters and established brain-behavior relationships. T1 MPRAGE images (N = 530) of healthy adults were obtained from the NKI-Rockland Sample and reconstructed using Freesurfer 5.3. Visual inspection of T1 images was conducted for: (1) participants (n = 110) with outlier values (z scores ±3 SD) for subcortical and cortical segmentation volumes (outlier group), and (2) a random sample of remaining participants (n = 110) with segmentation values that did not meet the outlier criterion (non-outlier group). The outlier group had 21% more participants with visual inspection-identified errors than participants in the non-outlier group, with a medium effect size (Φ = 0.22). Nevertheless, a considerable portion of images with errors of cortical extension were found in the non-outlier group (41%). Although nine brain regions significantly changed size from pre- to post-editing (with effect sizes ranging from 0.26 to 0.59), editing did not substantially change the correlations of neurocognitive tasks and brain volumes (ps > 0.05). Statistically-based QA, although less resource intensive, is not accurate enough to supplant visual inspection. We discuss practical implications of our findings to guide resource allocation decisions for image processing.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N