A comprehensive array of gray matter labels for the MIITRA atlas: Interoperability with complementary atlases

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundA comprehensive array of gyral‐based,cytoarchitecture‐based,and functional connectivity‐based gray matter labels were constructed in the Multichannel Illinois Institute of Technology & Rush university Aging (MIITRA) atlas space in order to enhance the functionality of the atlas and its interoperability with complementary atlases.MethodT1w images from the 400 older adults included in the construction of the MIITRA atlas (50%male;64.9‐98.9 years of age) were processed with Freesurfer’s standard recon‐all pipeline. The Freesurfer outputs for all images were manually edited. Parcellations from Yeo,Desikan‐Killiany,HCP‐MMP,Brainnetome,Brodmann,Destrieux,Campbell,Flechsig,Mindboggle,Kleist,Smith,and EconomoCT atlases were projected onto the surface of each image and then converted to volumetric labels. The T1w images were also nonlinearly registered using ANTs‐SyN to the MNI152‐6thgen,MNI‐Colin,and the MNI‐2009b templates, and volumetric labels from Harvard‐Oxford,Julich,AAL3,Buckner,CoBrALab,CAREN,Striatum‐subdivision and Hippocampal‐subfields atlases were warped to the space of each image. The ANTs‐derived transformations applied on individual T1w images to build the MIITRA T1w template were used to map the corresponding gray matter labels from raw space to exact physical locations in the final MIITRA space. The performance of the MIITRA gray matter labels in segmentation of the gray matter of a separate group of 100 older adult individuals was evaluated in terms of label overlap, geometry, and dissimilarity when comparing the MIITRA labels warped to each individual’s space, to the respective reference labels from the source atlases.ResultExamples of the gray matter labels in MIITRA space are shown in Figure1. The measures of overlap between the warped and reference labels for each set of labels were generally high, with an average Dice coefficient of 0.78±0.3, average Jaccard coefficient of 0.59±0.27(Fig.2), sensitivity of 0.74±0.1, and specificity of 0.86±0.35(Fig.3). The label geometry showed a high correlation both in terms of the average volume of each label(correlation coefficient = 0.997,p‐value<10−10) and in terms of the average surface area of each label(correlation coefficient = 0.991,p‐value<10−10)(Fig.4). The values of dissimilarity were low, with an average volume error of 0.38±0.2(Fig.5).ConclusionThe gray matter labels in the MIITRA, in combination with the high‐resolution T1w template of the atlas, allowed segmentation of the gray matter of older adults that is in good agreement with the reference labels from the source atlases.