Artificial double inversion recovery images can substitute conventionally acquired images: an MRI-histology study.
Aged
Cerebral Cortex
/ diagnostic imaging
Diagnosis
Diffusion Tensor Imaging
/ methods
Female
Histological Techniques
/ methods
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multiple Sclerosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Neuroimaging
/ methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 02 2022
16 02 2022
Historique:
received:
20
10
2021
accepted:
28
01
2022
entrez:
17
2
2022
pubmed:
18
2
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cortical multiple sclerosis lesions are disease-specific, yet inconspicuous on magnetic resonance images (MRI). Double inversion recovery (DIR) images are sensitive, but often unavailable in clinical routine and clinical trials. Artificially generated images can mitigate this issue, but lack histopathological validation. In this work, artificial DIR images were generated from postmortem 3D-T1 and proton-density (PD)/T2 or 3D-T1 and 3D fluid-inversion recovery (FLAIR) images, using a generative adversarial network. All sequences were scored for cortical lesions, blinded to histopathology. Subsequently, tissue samples were stained for proteolipid protein (myelin) and scored for cortical lesions type I-IV (leukocortical, intracortical, subpial and cortex-spanning, respectively). Histopathological scorings were then (unblinded) compared to MRI using linear mixed models. Images from 38 patients (26 female, mean age 64.3 ± 10.7) were included. A total of 142 cortical lesions were detected, predominantly subpial. Histopathology-blinded/unblinded sensitivity was 13.4/35.2% for artificial DIR generated from T1-PD/T2, 14.1/41.5% for artificial DIR from T1-FLAIR, 17.6/49.3% for conventional DIR and 10.6/34.5% for 3D-T1. When blinded to histopathology, there were no differences; with histopathological feedback at hand, conventional DIR and artificial DIR from T1-FLAIR outperformed the other sequences. Differences between histopathology-blinded/unblinded sensitivity could be minified through adjustment of the scoring criteria. In conclusion, artificial DIR images, particularly generated from T1-FLAIR could potentially substitute conventional DIR images when these are unavailable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35173226
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06546-4
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-06546-4
pmc: PMC8850613
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2620Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Dec;11(12):1082-92
pubmed: 23153407
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jun;43(6):1445-54
pubmed: 26606758
Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;30(2):106-17
pubmed: 15043708
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Mar;26(3):572-7
pubmed: 15760868
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2010;13(Pt 3):181-8
pubmed: 20879398
Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):254-60
pubmed: 15987979
Brain. 2021 Jun 22;144(5):1384-1395
pubmed: 33880511
Med Phys. 2017 Apr;44(4):1408-1419
pubmed: 28192624
Neurology. 2011 Feb 1;76(5):418-24
pubmed: 21209373
Brain Commun. 2019 Oct 24;1(1):fcz030
pubmed: 32954270
Invest Radiol. 2020 Nov;55(11):727-735
pubmed: 32604385
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Sep;7(9):841-51
pubmed: 18703006
Mult Scler. 2011 Oct;17(10):1202-10
pubmed: 21561955
Nat Rev Neurol. 2010 Aug;6(8):438-44
pubmed: 20625376
Invest Radiol. 2020 May;55(5):318-323
pubmed: 31977602
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012 Sep;83(9):877-82
pubmed: 22807559
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003 Jul;62(7):723-32
pubmed: 12901699
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Feb;17(2):162-173
pubmed: 29275977
Med Image Anal. 2019 Dec;58:101552
pubmed: 31521965
Brain. 2016 May;139(Pt 5):1472-81
pubmed: 26956422
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Mar;39(3):459-466
pubmed: 29439120
Brain. 2020 Oct 1;143(10):2988-2997
pubmed: 32889535
Acta Neurol Scand. 2009 Jun;119(6):349-55
pubmed: 19254283
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2014 Mar;3(2):253-7
pubmed: 25878013
Neurology. 2012 Jan 31;78(5):302-8
pubmed: 22218278
N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 8;365(23):2188-97
pubmed: 22150037
Mult Scler. 2021 Jul 14;:13524585211029860
pubmed: 34259591
Neuroimage Clin. 2020;27:102335
pubmed: 32663798