JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FSL Archives


FSL Archives

FSL Archives


FSL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  March 2011

FSL March 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Normalize DATSCAN to MNI (ideally non-linear)

From:

Mark Jenkinson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FSL - FMRIB's Software Library <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:18:38 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (163 lines)

Dear Cornelius and Sven,

OK, I've seen Sven's images now and have a much better feel for it.
The segmentation approach for an individual structural sounds flawed
based on Cornelius's observation that the DaTScan does not show
all the structure borders clearly.  However, the good news is that from
the images it is clear that you can find the whole brain in the scan
and there main boundaries (at least brain/non-brain) are shown OK.
There is clearly a hot-spot in the middle of the scan, but that can be
dealt with by (a) hoping that the multi-modal cost functions (mutual
information, etc.) will just be OK with this, (b) "inverse" thresholding 
the image so that intensities over a certain threshold are capped at 
that value (thus eliminating the bright spots), or (c) using a basal
ganglia drived mask (from an individual segmentation or a standard
space) to do cost-function weighting and set these areas to zero
in the weight (thus ignoring their contribution to the overall alignment).

I think that there is a good chance that one of these options would work.

All the best,
	Mark

P.S. I wrote this before seeing Cornelius's linked images, which are
worse than the one Sven sent wrt brain boundaries.  Hopefully
most data looks like Sven's images, although it still might be possible
to register the images that Cornelius sent.  The outer border of the
brain is a very good boundary for registration within-subject.


On 16 Mar 2011, at 10:10, Cornelius Werner wrote:

> Dear Mark,
> 
> that's precisely why I think this will not work - the boundaries are
> NOT equal. In pathological DatScans the volume typically gets smaller
> (particularly the "tail" towards the occiput), while the anatomical
> structure stays the same. See this link for an example:
> 
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735875
> 
> or simply google DaTScan in an image search. While I am certainly not
> an PET expert, I seem to remember that DaTScans are somewhat difficult
> to analyze automatically. In our routine, we get semiquantitative
> results by our nuclear medicine staff at best.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cornelius
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Sven Haller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear Mark
>> 
>> Thanks a lot
>> Try this link. I hope that it works
>> http://gallery.me.com/sven.haller/100063
>> 
>> Sven
>> 
>> On 16 mars 2011, at 10:20, Mark Jenkinson wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Sven,
>>> 
>>> It will all be about whether you can see details in the images of
>>> anatomical boundaries like in the MRI or not.  Certainly the more
>>> "different" the images are and the less details you have in them
>>> the more it will be absolutely essential to register them to another
>>> within-subject image (using 6 dof or similar) as non-linear registration
>>> requires highly detailed images that show the same structures in
>>> each.
>>> 
>>> One approach might be (but I can't say for sure without seeing the
>>> images) to segment the basal ganglia in the T1-weighted image and
>>> use this as a registration target.  However, this would only be appropriate
>>> if the DATSCAN clearly showed only these boundaries and had them
>>> close to the anatomical boundaries.
>>> 
>>> As for showing an image - can you post it somewhere on the web and
>>> put the link to it in the email.  It is not possible to attach anything but the
>>> smallest attachments to the list (to avoid everyone's inbox getting swamped).
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>>       Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 16 Mar 2011, at 09:10, Sven Haller wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Mark
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for your e-mail
>>>> 
>>>> In fact the DaTScans are very different to "normal" SPECT or PET, e.g. FDG PET. In the latter you have activity in the entire brain, so I think that normalization to a T1 (maybe after BET) should be possible (although I have no personal experience here).
>>>> 
>>>> The image of a DaTScan is fundamentally different (see attachment). In fact activity is present only in the basal ganglia. I think that therefore the procedure to normalize the scans should be very different.
>>>> 
>>>> I like FSL, and I would like to analyze VBM and TBSS. Therefore it would be best to analyze the DaTScan also in FSL, followed by a RANDOMISE analysis
>>>> 
>>>> Any help is highly appreciated
>>>> 
>>>> Sven
>>>> 
>>>> PS: The image was refused (too large). Maybe I can send it to you in another way??
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 16 mars 2011, at 09:29, Mark Jenkinson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Sven,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have no direct experience of DATSCANs but I assume they are similar
>>>>> to general SPECT or PET scans.  We have had success registering
>>>>> SPECT/PET to MRI before.  It is always better to register the SPECT/PET
>>>>> to that subject's MRI using 6 DOF with FLIRT and a cost function like
>>>>> mutualinfo or normmi.  I would normally choose the best T1-weighted
>>>>> scan as the reference, but it may depend on what features are most
>>>>> clearly seen in your DATSCAN.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once you've got a good registration of your DATSCAN to your MRI,
>>>>> then you can register the MRI to the MNI standard space image.
>>>>> This registration can be done with non-linear (FLIRT then FNIRT)
>>>>> whereas it is usually very, very bad to try and register the SPECT/PET
>>>>> with non-linear directly as there are very few features there to drive
>>>>> that registration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When you have the two registrations then you can combine them with
>>>>> convertwarp to get a non-linear registration from the DATSCAN to
>>>>> the MNI standard space.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do not know what you want in terms of a "specific template of the
>>>>> basal ganglia" but we have several atlases in FSL, and they include
>>>>> basal ganglia parcellations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>     Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 16 Mar 2011, at 07:37, Sven Haller wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to normalize DATSCANs to MNI standard space
>>>>>> I also have 3DT1 (easy using FSLVBM) and DTI (easy using TBSS).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are there any existing tools for FSL for DATSCANs?
>>>>>> Is there a specific template of the basal ganglia?
>>>>>> Any experience whether it is better to perform a linear registration DATSCAN to DTI, and then use the non-linear registration of TBSS, or better directly register DATSCAN to NMI? In that case, how? Linear or non-linear?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any help is highly appreciated
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. med. Cornelius J. Werner
> Department of Neurology
> RWTH Aachen University
> Pauwelsstr. 30
> 52074 Aachen
> Germany
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager