4.7 Article

Texture analysis of ultrahigh field T2*-weighted MR images of the brain: Application to Huntington's disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 633-640

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24199

Keywords

neurodegenerative diseases; MR images; texture analysis; subcortical structures; Huntington's disease; ultrahigh field

Funding

  1. CHDI/High Q Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To develop a framework for quantitative detection of between-group textural differences in ultrahigh field T-2*-weighted MR images of the brain. Materials and Methods MR images were acquired using a three-dimensional (3D) T-2*-weighted gradient echo sequence on a 7 Tesla MRI system. The phase images were high-pass filtered to remove phase wraps. Thirteen textural features were computed for both the magnitude and phase images of a region of interest based on 3D Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix, and subsequently evaluated to detect between-group differences using a Mann-Whitney U-test. We applied the framework to study textural differences in subcortical structures between premanifest Huntington's disease (HD), manifest HD patients, and controls. Results In premanifest HD, four phase-based features showed a difference in the caudate nucleus. In manifest HD, 7 magnitude-based features showed a difference in the pallidum, 6 phase-based features in the caudate nucleus, and 10 phase-based features in the putamen. After multiple comparison correction, significant differences were shown in the putamen in manifest HD by two phase-based features (both adjusted P values = 0.04). Conclusion This study provides the first evidence of textural heterogeneity of subcortical structures in HD. Texture analysis of ultrahigh field T-2*-weighted MR images can be useful for noninvasive monitoring of neurodegenerative diseases. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:633-640. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available