Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Improving Choroid Plexus Segmentation in the Healthy and Diseased Brain: Relevance for Tau-PET Imaging in Dementia
Tadayon E, Moret B, Sprugnoli G, Monti L, Pascual-Leone A, Santarnecchi E, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2020-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Recent studies have revealed the possible role of choroid plexus (ChP) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). T1-weighted MRI is the modality of choice for the segmentation of ChP in humans. Manual segmentation is considered the gold-standard technique, but given its time-consuming nature, large-scale neuroimaging studies of ChP would be impossible. In this study, we introduce a lightweight segmentation algorithm based on the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). We compared its performance against manual segmentation as well as automated segmentation by Freesurfer in three separate datasets: 1) patients with structural MRIs enhanced with contrast (n = 19), 2) young healthy subjects (n = 20), and 3) patients with AD (n = 20). GMM outperformed Freesurfer and showed high similarity with manual segmentation. To further assess the algorithm's performance in large scale studies, we performed GMM segmentations in young healthy subjects from the Human Connectome Project (n = 1,067), as well as healthy controls, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD patients from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 509). In both datasets, GMM segmented ChP more accurately than Freesurfer. To show the clinical importance of accurate ChP segmentation, total AV1451 (tau) PET binding to ChP was measured in 108 MCI and 32 AD patients. GMM was able to reveal the higher AV1451 binding to ChP in AD compared with MCI. Our results provide evidence for the utility of the GMM in accurately segmenting ChP and show its clinical relevance in AD. Future structural and functional studies of ChP will benefit from GMM's accurate segmentation.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tadayon, E., Moret, B., Sprugnoli, G., Monti, L., Pascual-Leone, A., Santarnecchi, E., et al. (2020). Improving Choroid Plexus Segmentation in the Healthy and Diseased Brain: Relevance for Tau-PET Imaging in Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190706
Vancouver
Tadayon E, Moret B, Sprugnoli G, Monti L, Pascual-Leone A, Santarnecchi E, et al. Improving Choroid Plexus Segmentation in the Healthy and Diseased Brain: Relevance for Tau-PET Imaging in Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2020. doi:10.3233/jad-190706. PMID: 32144979.
BibTeX
@article{tadayon2020-32144979,
author = {Tadayon, E. and Moret, B. and Sprugnoli, G. and Monti, L. and Pascual-Leone, A. and Santarnecchi, E. and {Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Improving Choroid Plexus Segmentation in the Healthy and Diseased Brain: Relevance for Tau-PET Imaging in Dementia}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3233/jad-190706},
pmid = {32144979},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190706}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Recent studies have revealed the possible role of choroid plexus (ChP) in Alzheimer's disease (AD).
- GMM was able to reveal the higher AV1451 binding to ChP in AD compared with MCI.
- Our results provide evidence for the utility of the GMM in accurately segmenting ChP and show its clinical relevance in AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants19
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 19 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32144979) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “relevance”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “relevance”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.