JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Laere, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dierckx, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Laere, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dierckx, R.

Analysis of Clinical Brain SPECT Data Based on Anatomic Standardization and Reference to Normal Data: An ROC-Based Comparison of Visual, Semiquantitative, and Voxel-Based Methods

Koenraad J. Van Laere, MD, PhD, DrSc;1, James Warwick, MD;2, Jan Versijpt, MD;1, Ingeborg Goethals, MD;1, Kurt Audenaert, MD, PhD;3, Ben Van Heerden, MD, MSc;2 and Rudi Dierckx, MD, PhD1

1 Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
2 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa
3 Department of Psychiatry, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium



View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1. Schematic study design. Each of 2 groups of well-defined patients was mixed with 5 studies from age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers. These were compared with reference studies from, respectively, 20 and 15 healthy volunteers using visual scoring system and 3 automated methods based on anatomic standardization: predefined VOI analysis, voxelwise analysis based on region growing (BRASS), and SPM (SPM99).

 


View larger version (58K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2. Example of BRASS and SPM analysis for TBI (A) and cognitive impairment from AD (B). Cutoff for BRASS was taken at 3 SDs (minimal detection volume, 0.5 mL); for SPM, uncorrected probability value of 0.0005 was used for height (extent threshold = 18). SPM{Tx} indicates SPM t maps with x degrees of freedom.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3. ROC curves for TBI group (A), cognitive impairment group (B), and total population (C). Curves represent visual scoring, predefined VOI analysis, voxel-based region growing (BRASS), and SPM (SPM99), both uncorrected (SPM_UC) and corrected for multiple comparisons (SPM_C).

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4. Agreement between regional analysis at cutoffs corresponding to 70% specificity and at least 70% sensitivity for visual (Vis) analysis, VOI analysis, BRASS, and SPM (uncorrected) in TBI group (A) and cognitive impairment group (B). CI = confidence interval.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5. Between-methods agreement as function of VOI, irrespective of analysis method. Only left-sided volumes are indicated on x-axis; tick mark to right corresponds to contralateral VOI. LCB = left cerebellum; LCN = left caudate head; LFR = left frontal; LLT = left lateral temporal; LMT = left mesial temporal; LOC = left occipital; LPA = left parietal; LST = left striatum; LTH = left thalamus; PON = pons (unpaired).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.