Search

Accurate lesion segmentation is critical in stroke rehabilitation research for the quantification of lesion burden and accurate image processing. Current automated lesion segmentation methods for T1-weighted (T1w) MRIs, commonly used in stroke research, lack accuracy and reliability. Manual segmentation remains the gold standard, but it is time-consuming, subjective, and requires neuroanatomical expertise. We previously released an open-source dataset of stroke T1w MRIs and manually-segmented lesion masks (ATLAS v1.2, N = 304) to encourage the development of better algorithms. However, many methods developed with ATLAS v1.2 report low accuracy, are not publicly accessible or are improperly validated, limiting their utility to the field. Here we present ATLAS v2.0 (N = 1271), a larger dataset of T1w MRIs and manually segmented lesion masks that includes training (n = 655), test (hidden masks, n = 300), and generalizability (hidden MRIs and masks, n = 316) datasets. Algorithm development using this larger sample should lead to more robust solutions; the hidden datasets allow for unbiased performance evaluation via segmentation challenges. We anticipate that ATLAS v2.0 will lead to improved algorithms, facilitating large-scale stroke research.

Neuroimaging has played an important part in advancing our understanding of the neurobiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At the same time, neuroimaging studies of OCD have had notable limitations, including reliance on relatively small samples. International collaborative efforts to increase statistical power by combining samples from across sites have been bolstered by the ENIGMA consortium; this provides specific technical expertise for conducting multi-site analyses, as well as access to a collaborative community of neuroimaging scientists. In this article, we outline the background to, development of, and initial findings from ENIGMA's OCD working group, which currently consists of 47 samples from 34 institutes in 15 countries on 5 continents, with a total sample of 2,323 OCD patients and 2,325 healthy controls. Initial work has focused on studies of cortical thickness and subcortical volumes, structural connectivity, and brain lateralization in children, adolescents and adults with OCD, also including the study on the commonalities and distinctions across different neurodevelopment disorders. Additional work is ongoing, employing machine learning techniques. Findings to date have contributed to the development of neurobiological models of OCD, have provided an important model of global scientific collaboration, and have had a number of clinical implications. Importantly, our work has shed new light on questions about whether structural and functional alterations found in OCD reflect neurodevelopmental changes, effects of the disease process, or medication impacts. We conclude with a summary of ongoing work by ENIGMA-OCD, and a consideration of future directions for neuroimaging research on OCD within and beyond ENIGMA.

Objective: Brain imaging communities focusing on different diseases have increasingly started to collaborate and to pool data to perform well-powered meta- and mega-analyses. Some methodologists claim that a one-stage individual-participant data (IPD) mega-analysis can be superior to a two-stage aggregated data meta-analysis, since more detailed computations can be performed in a mega-analysis. Before definitive conclusions regarding the performance of either method can be drawn, it is necessary to critically evaluate the methodology of, and results obtained by, meta- and mega-analyses. Methods: Here, we compare the inverse variance weighted random-effect meta-analysis model with a multiple linear regression mega-analysis model, as well as with a linear mixed-effects random-intercept mega-analysis model, using data from 38 cohorts including 3,665 participants of the ENIGMA-OCD consortium. We assessed the effect sizes and standard errors, and the fit of the models, to evaluate the performance of the different methods. Results: The mega-analytical models showed lower standard errors and narrower confidence intervals than the meta-analysis. Similar standard errors and confidence intervals were found for the linear regression and linear mixed-effects random-intercept models. Moreover, the linear mixed-effects random-intercept models showed better fit indices compared to linear regression mega-analytical models. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that results obtained by meta- and mega-analysis differ, in favor of the latter. In multi-center studies with a moderate amount of variation between cohorts, a linear mixed-effects random-intercept mega-analytical framework appears to be the better approach to investigate structural neuroimaging data.

Objective: Brain imaging communities focusing on different diseases have increasingly started to collaborate and to pool data to perform well-powered meta- and mega-analyses. Some methodologists claim that a one-stage individual-participant data (IPD) mega-analysis can be superior to a two-stage aggregated data meta-analysis, since more detailed computations can be performed in a mega-analysis. Before definitive conclusions regarding the performance of either method can be drawn, it is necessary to critically evaluate the methodology of, and results obtained by, meta- and mega-analyses. Methods: Here, we compare the inverse variance weighted random-effect meta-analysis model with a multiple linear regression mega-analysis model, as well as with a linear mixed-effects random-intercept mega-analysis model, using data from 38 cohorts including 3,665 participants of the ENIGMA-OCD consortium. We assessed the effect sizes and standard errors, and the fit of the models, to evaluate the performance of the different methods. Results: The mega-analytical models showed lower standard errors and narrower confidence intervals than the meta-analysis. Similar standard errors and confidence intervals were found for the linear regression and linear mixed-effects random-intercept models. Moreover, the linear mixed-effects random-intercept models showed better fit indices compared to linear regression mega-analytical models. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that results obtained by meta- and mega-analysis differ, in favor of the latter. In multi-center studies with a moderate amount of variation between cohorts, a linear mixed-effects random-intercept mega-analytical framework appears to be the better approach to investigate structural neuroimaging data.

Patients with deficit schizophrenia (SZD) suffer from primary and enduring negative symptoms. Limited pieces of evidence and neuroimaging studies indicate they differ from patients with non-deficit schizophrenia (SZND) in neurobiological aspects, but the results are far from conclusive. We applied for the first time, graph theory analyses to discriminate local and global indices of brain network topology in SZD and SZND patients compared with healthy controls (HC). High-resolution T1-weighted images were acquired for 21 SZD patients, 21 SZND patients, and 21 HC to measure cortical thickness from 68 brain regions. Graph-based metrics (i.e., centrality, segregation, and integration) were computed and compared among groups, at both global and regional networks. When compared to HC, at the regional level, SZND were characterized by temporoparietal segregation and integration differences, while SZD showed widespread alterations in all network measures. SZD also showed less segregated network topology at the global level in comparison to HC. SZD and SZND differed in terms of centrality and integration measures in nodes belonging to the left temporoparietal cortex and to the limbic system. SZD is characterized by topological features in the network architecture of brain regions involved in negative symptomatology. Such results help to better define the neurobiology of SZD (SZD: Deficit Schizophrenia; SZND: Non-Deficit Schizophrenia; SZ: Schizophrenia; HC: healthy controls; CC: clustering coefficient; L: characteristic path length; E: efficiency; D: degree; CCnode: CC of a node; CCglob: the global CC of the network; Eloc: efficiency of the information transfer flow either within segregated subgraphs or neighborhoods nodes; Eglob: efficiency of the information transfer flow among the global network; FDA: Functional Data Analysis; and Dmin: estimated minimum densities). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Predominant polarity (PP) is a proposed course specifier for bipolar disorders (BD) based on patient lifetime mood episodes. Hippocampal subfield volumetric changes have been proposed as a neurobiological marker for BD and could be influenced by mood episodes. Our study aimed to test the hypothesis that patients with BD differ in hippocampal subfield volumes according to their PP. Methods: We assessed 172 outpatients, diagnosed with BD according to DSM‐IV‐TR criteria, and 150 healthy control (HC) participants. High‐resolution magnetic resonance imaging was performed on all subjects and volumes of all hippocampal subfields were measured using FreeSurfer. Results: Patients with depressive PP (BD‐DP) and with uncertain PP (BD‐UP) but not with manic/hypomanic PP (BD‐MP) showed a global reduction on all hippocampal subfield volumes with respect to HCs. When directly compared, BD‐DP presented with smaller bilateral presubiculum/subiculum volumes than BD‐MP. Conclusions: Results support the potential utility of PP not only as a clinical but also as a neurobiological specifier of BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alterations in hippocampal structure and function are present in bipolar disorder (BD). Childhood trauma is associated with risk for BD, and the several subfields of the hippocampus are differentially sensitive to the effects of stressors of the sort associated with risk for BD. The current study therefore sought to test the hypothesis that childhood trauma may be differentially associated with abnormal hippocampal subfield volumes in BD.Methods: 104 participants with BD type I (BD-I, n = 56) or BD type II (BD-II, n = 48) and 81 healthy controls (HC) underwent high-resolution structural magnetic resonance neuroimaging. Hippocampal subfield volumes were determined using FreeSurfer. Childhood trauma was assessed with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ).Results: There were significant effects of diagnosis on intracranial volume corrected hippocampal subfield volumes bilaterally as well as a significant interaction between diagnosis and childhood trauma. Hippocampal volumes did not differ between the BD-I and BD-II subgroups but hippocampal volumes were smaller in both groups when compared to HC. There was a significant effect of childhood trauma on bilateral presubiculum volume as well as significant interactions between diagnosis and childhood trauma on bilateral CA1, presubiculum and subiculum volumes, the direction of which differed between individuals with BD (larger) and HC (smaller).Limitations: Recall bias may influence the reliability of the retrospective assessment of childhood trauma experiences.Conclusions: Childhood trauma demonstrates differential effects on hippocampal subfield volumes of BD and HC, particularly in hippocampal subfields involved in emotion regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]