NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundQuantitative analysis of brain positron-emission tomography (PET) depends on structural segmentation, which can be time-consuming and operator-dependent when performed manually. Previous automatic segmentation usually registered subjects' images onto an atlas template (defined as RSIAT here) for group analysis, which changed the individuals' images and probably affected regional PET segmentation. In contrast, we could register atlas template to subjects' images (RATSI), which created an individual atlas template and may be more accurate for PET segmentation. We segmented two representative brain areas in twenty Parkinson disease (PD) and eight multiple system atrophy (MSA) patients performed in hybrid positron-emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MR). The segmentation accuracy was evaluated using the Dice coefficient (DC) and Hausdorff distance (HD), and the standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements of these two automatic segmentation methods were compared, using manual segmentation as a reference.ResultsThe DC of RATSI increased, and the HD decreased significantly (P mean and SUVmax among the two automatic and the manual segmentation methods. Further, RATSI was used to compare regional differences in cerebral metabolism pattern between PD and MSA patients. The SUVmean in the segmented cerebellar gray matter for the MSA group was significantly lower compared with the PD group (P ConclusionThe RATSI was more accurate for the caudate nucleus and putamen automatic segmentation and can be used for regional PET analysis in hybrid PET/MR.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.