Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Schwarz, Christopher G.
• Kremers, Walter K.
• Weigand, Stephen D.
• Prakaashana, Carl M.
• Senjem, Matthew L.
• Lowe, Val J.
• Gunter, Jeffrey L.
• Kantarci, Kejal
• Vemuri, Prashanthi
• Petersen, Ronald C.
• Knopman, David S.
• Jack, Clifford R.

Titel

Effects of de‐facing T1 MRI, FLAIR MRI, Amyloid PET, and Tau PET scans on imaging‐clinical correlations analyses

Ist Teil von

• Alzheimer's & dementia, 2023-12, Vol.19 (S17), p.n/a

Erscheinungsjahr

2023

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Wiley Online Library Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background Automated face recognition can potentially re‐identify de‐identified research brain MRI, PET, and CT, and direct differences of brain measurements from original and de‐faced images are statistically significant but very minor, i.e. below scan‐rescan differences. Their effects on analyses correlating brain imaging biomarkers with clinical variables remain unknown. Method We sampled 3 age‐and‐sex‐matched groups (CU, MCI, and clinical AD) from Mayo Clinic aging studies, each with 61 participants with same‐visit 3D T1‐weighted and 3D T2‐FLAIR MRI, PiB amyloid PET, and Flortaucipir tau PET (total n = 183). We automatically measured hippocampal volume, PIB global SUVR, and tau temporal meta‐ROI SUVR using a) our in‐house pipeline with SPM12, MCALT, and ANTs, and b) FreeSurfer 7.3.2 (PETSurfer), and we measured voxels associated with clinical group separation using SPM12. We also measured WMH from FLAIR using a) our in‐house pipeline, b) Lesion Segmentation Tool (LST), and c) FreeSurfer’s Samseg. For each measurement, we calculated pair‐wise group separation AUC values and Spearman’s rho with age and CDR‐SOB. We then de‐faced all PET and MRI using mri_reface, our top‐performing automated de‐facing software that replaces imaged faces with an average face (“re‐facing”), and we repeated all measurements and analyses with de‐faced images. We then compared the magnitudes of clinical correlations with original images and those of de‐faced images. Result Analyses of original and de‐faced images had very high agreement. Only 2/55 paired comparisons were significant (Tables 1‐2): FreeSurfer‐measured global PIB SUVR from de‐faced images was more correlated with age (rho 0.003 vs ‐0.227, p = 0.046), and Mayo‐measured WMH volume from original images was more correlated with CDR‐SOB (rho 0.321 vs 0.308, p = 0.020). Another comparison‐pair tested p = 0.041 for an AUC change +0.008, which we consider not practically meaningful. All others had p>0.05. In voxel‐based analyses of CU vs AD participants, all comparisons were qualitatively similar between original and de‐faced variants (Figure 1). Conclusion De‐facing PET and MRI using mri_reface did not significantly affect 53/55 correlations between imaging and clinical variables; of the two affected, one became stronger with re‐faced images. Stronger correlations with clinical variables may be explained by de‐facing’s standardizing face voxels and artifacts that irrelevantly affect brain segmentations.