Different morphological imaging techniques possible for neuroscience: Morphological imaging techniques in neuroscience

Muhammed Emre Yüzer; Büşra Zencirci; Zümrüt Doğan

doi:10.5281/zenodo.13623154

Authors

Muhammed Emre Yüzer Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Adıyaman University, Adiyaman, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0115-9473
Büşra Zencirci Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Adıyaman University, Adiyaman, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6015-3047
Zümrüt Doğan Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Adıyaman University, Adiyaman, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7131-2317

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13623154

Keywords:

Brain, Horos, MRI, Neuroscience, Volbrain

Abstract

Brain morphology and function have underpinned the vast majority of scientific research since time immemorial. Study trends in this field have increased the demand for neurosciences, a multidisciplinary field. Although the anatomy and functions of the brain, which form the basis of neurosciences, have been studied frequently, they remain mysterious. Brain morphologic areas are prominent in many neurodegenerative diseases. In this study, our aim is to compare different morphological measurement methods in neuroscience using Horos and VolBrain applications from intracranial brain images obtained with the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique.

Our study is a method comparison study based on archive review. The use of these applications, data loading, and reliability of the results were compared. Both radiological imaging programs were useful in the volumetric examination of anatomical structures. Although HOROS is more useful in 2D and 3D imaging than VolBrain, the fact that it is a Mac-based program may reduce its usefulness in volumetric calculations. VolBrain software, on the other hand, performs the calculations automatically and obtains data of many structures at the same time, which provides great convenience to the users.

Both applications give almost the same results in terms of volumetric measurement. This shows that both programs give reliable results. With the development of technology, different software and programs have emerged where morphological area and volume calculations can be made. Using these programs and software, the morphometry of many functional structures in neuroscience can be studied. Thus, we believe that the results obtained from this research will provide the opportunity to save time, ensure reproducibility, and test the reliability of the data for many possible research projects.

FULL TEXT PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Taş F. Nörobilim alanında multidisipliner yaklaşımlar. Iksad. 2021.

Soyuer F, Soyuer A. Yaşlılık ve fiziksel aktivite. Journal of Turgut Ozal Medical Center. 2008;15(3):219-24.

Erdoğan S, Bozkurt H. Türkiye’de yaşam beklentisi-ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: ARDL modeli ile bir analiz. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi. 2008;3(1):25-38.

Heemels MT. Neurodegenerative diseases. Nature. 2016;539(7628):179. https://doi.org/10.1038/539179a

Meijer FJ, Goraj B. Brain MRI in Parkinson's disease. Frontiers in bioscience (Elite edition). 2014;6(2):360-9. https://doi.org/10.2741/e711

Strayer RJ. Thoracic aortic syndromes. Emergency medicine clinics of North America. 2017;35(4):713-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2017.06.002

Mukhi SV, Lincoln CM. MRI in the Evaluation of acute visual syndromes. Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI. 2015;24(6):309-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/rmr.0000000000000070

Li J, Jin M, Sun X, Li J, Liu Y, Xi Y, et al. Imaging of moyamoya disease and moyamoya syndrome: Current status. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 2019;43(2):257-63. https://doi.org/10.1097/rct.0000000000000834

Wald LL. Ultimate MRI. Journal of magnetic resonance (San Diego, Calif : 1997). 2019;306:139-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2019.07.016

Ai T, Morelli JN, Hu X, Hao D, Goerner FL, Ager B, et al. A historical overview of magnetic resonance imaging, focusing on technological innovations. Investigative radiology. 2012;47(12):725-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318272d29f

Katti G, Ara SA, Shireen A. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–A review. International journal of dental clinics. 2011;3(1):65-70.

Curati WL, Bydder GM. Magnetic resonance imaging: present position and future prospects. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 1996;32a(4):589-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8049(96)00008-1

Lazarte-Rantes C, Pillaca-Cruzado O, Baca-Hinojosa N, Mamani W, Lee-Diaz J, Ugas-Charcape CF. MRI findings of primary intracranial sarcomas in children. Pediatric radiology. 2023;53(8):1698-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05605-w

Elsheikh S, Urbach H, Reisert M. Intracranial vessel segmentation in 3D high-resolution T1 black-blood MRI. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology. 2022;43(12):1719-21. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7700

Woźniak MM, Zbroja M, Matuszek M, Pustelniak O, Cyranka W, Drelich K, et al. Epilepsy in pediatric patients-evaluation of brain structures' volume using VolBrain software. Journal of clinical medicine. 2022;11(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164657

Turamanlar O, Kundakci YE, Saritas A, Bilir A, Atay E, Gökaslan CO. Automatic segmentation of the cerebellum using volBrain software in normal paediatric population. International journal of developmental neuroscience : the official journal of the International Society for Developmental Neuroscience. 2023;83(4):323-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdn.10259

Manjón JV, Coupé P. volBrain: An online MRI brain volumetry system. Frontiers in neuroinformatics. 2016;10:30. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232112854

Emre YM, Zümrüt D, Büşra Z. Comparison of different radiology-based measurement programs in cerebellar volume analysis of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. 23rd Natıonal Anatomy Congress ( 11-15 October). ACTA MEDICA formerly Hacettepe Medical Journal (pp 68) ( vol 54). 2023.

Agnello L, Ciaccio M. Neurodegenerative diseases: from molecular basis to therapy. International journal of molecular sciences. 2022;23(21).

Lynch MA, Mills KH. Immunology meets neuroscience--opportunities for immune intervention in neurodegenerative diseases. Brain, behavior, and immunity. 2012;26(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2011.05.013

Cummings JL, Banks SJ, Gary RK, Kinney JW, Lombardo JM, Walsh RR, et al. Alzheimer's disease drug development: translational neuroscience strategies. CNS spectrums. 2013;18(3):128-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1092852913000023

Panoutsopoulos AA. Organoids, assembloids, and novel biotechnology: steps forward in developmental and disease-related neuroscience. The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry. 2021;27(5):463-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858420960112

Yepes-Calderon F, McComb JG. Eliminating the need for manual segmentation to determine size and volume from MRI. A proof of concept on segmenting the lateral ventricles. PloS one. 2023;18(5):e0285414. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285414

West KL, Kelm ND, Carson RP, Gochberg DF, Ess KC, Does MD. Myelin volume fraction imaging with MRI. NeuroImage. 2018;182:511-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.067

Acer N, Kamasak B, Karapinar BO, Yetkin EA, İpekten F, Gray SB, et al. A comparison of automated segmentation and manual tracing of magnetic resonance imaging to quantify lateral ventricle volumes. 2022.

Demir M, Fındıklı E, Tuncel D, Atay E, Baykara M, Acer N, et al. Subcortical volume changes in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: A quantitative MRI study. International Journal of Morphology. 2024;42(2).

Samara A, Raji CA, Li Z, Hershey T. Comparison of hippocampal subfield segmentation agreement between 2 automated protocols across the adult life span. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology. 2021;42(10):1783-9. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7244

de Flores R, La Joie R, Landeau B, Perrotin A, Mézenge F, de La Sayette V, et al. Effects of age and Alzheimer's disease on hippocampal subfields: comparison between manual and FreeSurfer volumetry. Human brain mapping. 2015;36(2):463-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22640

Wisse LE, Biessels GJ, Geerlings MI. A critical appraisal of the hippocampal subfield segmentation package in FreeSurfer. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2014;6:261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00261

Malilay ORM, Ferraris KP, Navarro JEV. Neurosurgical planning in a low-resource setting using free open-source three-dimensional volume-rendering software. Neurosurgical focus. 2021;50(1):E2.

Zeppa P, Neitzert L, Mammi M, Monticelli M, Altieri R, Castaldo M, et al. How reliable are volumetric techniques for high-grade gliomas? A comparison study of different available tools. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(6):E672-E9.

Koussis P, Toulas P, Glotsos D, Lamprou E, Kehagias D, Lavdas E. Reliability of automated brain volumetric analysis: A test by comparing NeuroQuant and volBrain software. Brain and behavior. 2023;13(12):e3320. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3320

Zamani J, Sadr A, Javadi AH. Comparison of cortical and subcortical structural segmentation methods in Alzheimer's disease: A statistical approach. Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2022;99:99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2022.03.004