1 / 11

fBIRN Human Phantom Reproducibility Analysis

fBIRN Human Phantom Reproducibility Analysis. Prepared by Kelly H. Zou, PhD Analyzed by Meng Wang, MSE Surgical Planning Laboratory Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School 1-7-03. Voxel-Based Reproducibility Analysis. • Multi-Site BIRN Study: 11 Sites

ata
Download Presentation

fBIRN Human Phantom Reproducibility Analysis

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. fBIRN Human Phantom Reproducibility Analysis Prepared by Kelly H. Zou, PhDAnalyzed by Meng Wang, MSESurgical Planning Laboratory Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School 1-7-03

  2. Voxel-Based Reproducibility Analysis •Multi-Site BIRN Study: 11 Sites (MN, UCI, UNC, UCLA…, BWH, MGH) •5 Healthy males as “Human Phantoms” •2 Days (Visits) per site per subject •4 Sensory Motor (SM), 2 cognitive (Cog), and 2 breath-hold (BH) runs per day

  3. Participating Institutions

  4. Materials and Methods •Focus on Reproducibility of the SM Task Only: •Subjects perform bilateral finger tapping on button boxes (1 dummy button box and 1 actual) in time with 3Hz audio cue and flashing checkerboard square •Subjects press buttons 1 through 4 in consecutive order and then back again using both hands at simultaneously and in sync •Time frames=85; Scan time=4:06; Days 1 and 2

  5. Scan Protocol

  6. Partial Data Examined and Compared •Task: Sensory Motor •Site:5 Sites under 1.5T and 3 Sites under 3T •Subject:#101; 103; 104; 105; 106 •Run: 4 and registered—Later combined by EM • Day:#101; 103; 106 tested on 4 days at Stanford and other subjects tested on 2 Days/Site •Threshold:  = – log10(p-value)sign(F-statistic) = 5; 7; and 9

  7. Results: See the List of Figures •Activation Percentage; Sensitivity; and Specificity vs.the estimated “gold standard” by STAPLE (an EM-Algorithm) in Slicer over the 4 runs/day •Figures in pdf format are in the folders: Folder 1 (“3Sites-3T-5Humans”): 3T only 5 Humans; 3 Sites: MGH, STAN, MIN Folder 2 (“5Sites-1.5T-5Humans”): 1.5T only 5 Humans; 5 Sites: IOWA, DUNC, UCI, UCSD, NM Folder 3 (“Stanford-4Days-3T-3Humans”): 3T only 3 Humans; 1 Site: STAN

  8. Summary •Field Strength: 3.0T was better than 1.5T yielding more activation and less variability in sensitivity and specificity • Runs: There was a "zig-zag" effect over the runs (registered) after the rest and task periods • Days:Less activation was observed and more robust and systematic activation under different thresholds for Day 2 than Day 1

  9. Summary • Extra Days (Days 1-4): For the three subjects performing for 4 days at Stanford, less activation was observed for the latter two days with higher specificity and less variability. Variability across runs was quite high • Site vs. Subject: The variability across site appeared to be greater than variability across subjects

  10. Future Research • p-values based on ANOVA for statistical significance • Abstract for HBM deadline (1/15) and authorship • Ghosting in the data and other issues • Registration to overlay echo-planar data • Reliability maps and ROI analysis

  11. Acknowledgment • Grant ID: P41IRR131218 • List of Authors and Investigators: List Here…

More Related