Cited by 264Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Cortical surface-based analysis reduces bias and variance in kinetic modeling of brain PET data

Open access
Greve, Douglas N., Svarer, Claus, Fisher, Patrick M., Feng, Ling, Hansen, Adam E., Baare, William, Rosen, Bruce, Fischl, Bruce +1 more·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Exploratory (i.e., voxelwise) spatial methods are commonly used in neuroimaging to identify areas that show an effect when a region-of-interest (ROI) analysis cannot be performed because no strong a priori anatomical hypothesis exists. However, noise at a single voxel is much higher than noise in a ROI making noise management critical to successful exploratory analysis. This work explores how preprocessing choices affect the bias and variability of voxelwise kinetic modeling analysis of brain positron emission tomography (PET) data. These choices include the use of volume- or cortical surface-based smoothing, level of smoothing, use of voxelwise partial volume correction (PVC), and PVC masking threshold. PVC was implemented using the Muller-Gartner method with the masking out of voxels with low gray matter (GM) partial volume fraction. Dynamic PET scans of an antagonist serotonin-4 receptor radioligand ([(11)C]SB207145) were collected on sixteen healthy subjects using a Siemens HRRT PET scanner. Kinetic modeling was used to compute maps of non-displaceable binding potential (BPND) after preprocessing. The results showed a complicated interaction between smoothing, PVC, and masking on BPND estimates. Volume-based smoothing resulted in large bias and intersubject variance because it smears signal across tissue types. In some cases, PVC with volume smoothing paradoxically caused the estimated BPND to be less than when no PVC was used at all. When applied in the absence of PVC, cortical surface-based smoothing resulted in dramatically less bias and the least variance of the methods tested for smoothing levels 5mm and higher. When used in combination with PVC, surface-based smoothing minimized the bias without significantly increasing the variance. Surface-based smoothing resulted in 2-4 times less intersubject variance than when volume smoothing was used. This translates into more than 4 times fewer subjects needed in a group analysis to achieve similarly powered statistical tests. Surface-based smoothing has less bias and variance because it respects cortical geometry by smoothing the PET data only along the cortical ribbon and so does not contaminate the GM signal with that of white matter and cerebrospinal fluid. The use of surface-based analysis in PET should result in substantial improvements in the reliability and detectability of effects in exploratory PET analysis, with or without PVC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.021

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greve, D. N., Svarer, C., Fisher, P. M., Feng, L., Hansen, A. E., Baare, W., Rosen, B., Fischl, B., & Knudsen, G. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Greve, Douglas N.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
92
Pages
225-236
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137226568
Cited by
264
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 13
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Lundbeck Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (5R01EB006758-04, 5R01NS052585-05, 5R21NS072652-02, P41-RR14075, R01RR16594-01A1)
  • Capital Region of Denmark
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
partial volume correction, non-displaceable binding potential, 5-HT4 receptor, dynamic PET, bias and variance, exploratory analysis, interindividual variability
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Cerebral Cortex, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Kinetics, Male, Metabolic Clearance Rate, Models, Biological, Piperidines, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tissue Distribution, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, Radiopharmaceuticals, Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT4, Positron-Emission Tomography, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review