SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Multi-Atlas MRI-Based Striatum Segmentation for <sup>123</sup>I-FP-CIT SPECT (DAT-SPECT) Compared With the Bolt Method and SPECT-Atlas-Based Segmentation Method Toward the Accurate Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease/Syndrome.

Front Med (Lausanne) · 2021-05-25

DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.662233PMID: 34113635

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Aims: This study aimed to analyze the performance of multi-atlas MRI-based parcellation for 123I-FP-CIT SPECT (DAT-SPECT) in healthy volunteers. The proposed method was compared with the SPECT-atlas-based and Bolt methods. 18F-FE-PE2I-PET (DAT-PET) was used as a reference. Methods: Thirty healthy subjects underwent DAT-SPECT, DAT-PET, and 3D-T1WI-MRI. We calculated the striatum uptake ratio (SUR/SBR), caudate uptake ratio (CUR), and putamen uptake ratio (PUR) for DAT-SPECT using the multi-atlas MRI-based method, SPECT-atlas-based method, and Bolt method. In the multi-atlas MRI-based method, the cerebellum, occipital cortex, and whole-brain were used as reference regions. The correlation of age with DAT-SPECT activity and the correlations of SUR/SBR, CUR, and PUR between DAT-SPECT and DAT-PET were calculated by each of the three methods. Results: The correlation between age and SUR/SBR for DAT-SPECT based on the multi-atlas MRI-based method was comparable to that based on the SPECT-atlas-based method (r = -0.441 to -0.496 vs. -0.488). The highest correlation between DAT-SPECT and DAT-PET was observed using the multi-atlas MRI-based method with the occipital lobe defined as the reference region compared with the SPECT-atlas-based and Bolt methods (SUR, CUR, and PUR: 0.687, 0.723, and 0.676 vs. 0.698, 0.660, and 0.616 vs. 0.655). Conclusion: Multi-atlas MRI-based parcellation with the occipital lobe defined as the reference region was at least comparable to the clinical methods.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.