1 / 18

Regionally Specific Atrophy Following Traumatic Brain Injury

Regionally Specific Atrophy Following Traumatic Brain Injury. DG MCLAREN , BB BENDLIN, and SC JOHNSON University of Wisconsin—Madison & GRECC, Madison VA Hospital. Background. Identifying longitudinal changes are essential in understanding plasticity and predicting future outcomes

neve-finley
Télécharger la présentation

Regionally Specific Atrophy Following Traumatic Brain Injury

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Regionally Specific Atrophy Following Traumatic Brain Injury DG MCLAREN, BB BENDLIN, and SC JOHNSON University of Wisconsin—Madison & GRECC, Madison VA Hospital

  2. Background • Identifying longitudinal changes are essential in understanding plasticity and predicting future outcomes • Surface-based approaches have been used in functional and structural analyses

  3. Using the Cortical Surface McLaren et al. 2007, Van Essen et al. 2005 & 2006

  4. Background • Identifying longitudinal changes are essential in understanding plasticity and predicting future outcomes • Surface-based approaches have been used in functional and structural analyses • Can Surface-based approaches be used in longitudinal analyses?

  5. Study Parameters • T1-weighted SPGRs were collected at ~79 days and ~409 days post injury • Standard Axial SPGR sequence with .9375x.9375x1.2mm voxel dimensions

  6. Align Brains via Skull;Compute Flow Processing Steps 2 x Original T1 SIENA

  7. P<.0001 N=30 N=36 Trivedi et al. 2006 Global Results Using SIENA

  8. Bias Corrected T1(Brain Only) Normalize & Surface Analysis Processing Steps 2 x Original T1 Align Brains via Skull;Compute Flow SIENA

  9. Surface Creation and Registration Van Essen 2005

  10. Within Subject Surface Co-registration • Registration to PALS of the same surface produces identical results • Registration of an image to itself doesn’t produce the same results

  11. Within Subject Surface Co-registration • T-statistic of time 2 minus time 1 scans P<.0001 corrected Percent Brain Volume Change: -.048

  12. Within Subject Surface Co-registration

  13. TBI Patient Cross-section (time 1) P<.0001 corrected 1028

  14. TBI Patient Cross-section (time 2) P<.0001 corrected

  15. TBI Patient Longitudinal P<.0001 corrected Percent Brain Volume Change: -.8276

  16. Conclusions • Surface registration is stable • Normal Controls show little or no changes consistent with SIENA • Method is sensitive to changes over time (and errors in segmentation) • One of the first illustrations of longitudinal changes using the cortical surface

  17. Future Directions • Improve segmentation to increase accuracy • More automated and stable procedure • Create study specific averages • Compare against SIENAr • Other patient populations

  18. Acknowledgements • UW Institute of Aging • Collaborators on the project Trivedi MA, Ward MA, Hess TM, Gale SD, Dempsey RJ, Rowley HA • Funding Support: • NIH: T32 AG20013 • NIH: RO1 MH65723 • NIH: T32 GM007507 • Merit Review Grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs

More Related