1. Diagnosis of mesial temporal sclerosis: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging
- Author
-
Juan Felipe Orejuela Zapata and Ana María Granados Sánchez
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Neuroimaging of Neurological Disorders ,Adolescent ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,Epilepsy ,0302 clinical medicine ,Predictive Value of Tests ,Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Sensitivity (control systems) ,Retrospective Studies ,Hippocampal sclerosis ,Sclerosis ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,General Medicine ,Voxel-based morphometry ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,Predictive value ,Epilepsy, Temporal Lobe ,Case-Control Studies ,Temporal sclerosis ,Female ,Neurology (clinical) ,Nuclear medicine ,business ,Quantitative analysis (chemistry) ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
In the diagnosis of mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of qualitative assessment using conventional magnetic resonance imaging are low, mainly in mild or bilateral atrophy. Quantitative analysis may improve this performance. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of quantitative analysis using the hippocampal volumetric index (HVI) and hippocampal asymmetry index (HAI) compared with qualitative assessment in the MTS diagnosis. Twenty-five patients diagnosed with MTS, and 25 healthy subjects underwent conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Hippocampal volumes were obtained using an automated software (FreeSurfer); HVI and HAI were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to obtain the optimal threshold values. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for qualitative analysis were 44.00%, 96.00%, 91.67% and 63.16%, respectively. In the quantitative analysis, a threshold value of K = 0.22 for HVI provided a sensitivity value of 76.00%, specificity value of 96.00%, PPV of 95.00% and NPV of 80.00%. A threshold value of K = 0.06 for HAI provided the minimum C1 and C2 errors, with a sensitivity value of 88.00%, specificity value of 100%, PPV of 100% and NPV of 89.30%. A statistically significant difference was observed for HAI ( P
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF