External Email - Use Caution
Freesurfers,
First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude to the community for the support that keeps researchers like myself afloat!
I have a unique set of oncology patients that I want to evaluate for brain atrophy in a retrospective longitudinal analysis.
I was thinking about using Aseg.auto results to assess longitudinal volume changes, but before I invest all the time I wanted to check with the community whether this makes any sense at all:
The dataset that looks like this:
- 22 patients (no control dataset [yet])
- 10-25 MRIs per patient acquired over 2-8 years in relatively uniform intervals
- Patients had most of their scans on the same scanner, but scanners differed widely between patients
- All patients have axial T1 post gadolinium scans of 1x1x5mm resolution (3D acquisition available in <10%)
- About 80% of scans have an axial pre-contrast T1 sequence
- All scans are skullstripped (third party algorithm)
I'm looking for crude changes, no subtleties; volumes of interest are:
- Whole brain volume
- White matter volume
- Ventricular volume (mainly lateral ventricle)
- Subcortical gray matter volume (whole thalamus most importantly)
I ran a few test analyses and to my surprise I was able to generate pretty acceptable surfaces, however, topology fixing took about 24H per scan, and I feel aseg.auto contained all the volumetric data I was really interested in.
My concrete questions are:
1) Does the full autorecon pipeline affect Aseg.auto? If there is no benefit, I could reduce the per scan analysis time from 28 hours to 1-2 h.
2) Would this low-resolution dataset be accepted by reviewers if used for Aseg? Should I do any quantitative validation beyond a visual quality analysis of Aseg?
3) Can I perform a longitudinal analysis only for the Aseg results?
4) Is it OK to use T1-gad images for the analysis?
I'd appreciate any input!
Best regards,
David O. Kamson, MD PhD
Neuro-oncology fellow
Johns Hopkins Hospital &
National Institutes of Health