Publications
Text queries can be conducted by Author, Title, or Keyword.
Relating structure to function in vivo with tomographic imaging
Source: 1992 Feb;:93-101.
Author: Mazziotta JC, Valentino D, Grafton S, Bookstein F, Pelizzari C, Chen G, Toga AW.
Abstract:
For the normal physiological responses of the brain or the pathophysiological changes that accompany disease states to be evaluated, it is necessary to compare data sets between different imaging modalities for individual subjects. Similarly, it is important to compare data between individuals both within and across imaging modalities for individual subjects. In a collaborative project with a number of university groups we have developed a system that allows for the within-subject alignment and registration of three-dimensional data sets obtained from different modalities for the same individual. This analysis takes into account the error induced by image acquisition, registration and alignment with regard to scaling, translation and rotation. A more difficult problem is the between-subject warping of individual brain anatomy to match that of another individual or of an idealized model. If the principles of morphometrics and homologous landmarks are applied, three-dimensional brain warping can provide this type of between-subject comparison. The results of accomplishing these two tasks is a system that allows data obtained in a given individual to be compared across structure and function, as obtained from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and from positron emission tomography (PET), respectively. It also allows comparison of the resultant information with averaged between-subject data from populations of normal individuals or patients with specific neurological disorders. This system provides the means by which to compare quantitative data between individuals in an objective and automated fashion. CONCLUSION: Functional and structural images are not equivalent. Despite the fact that functional images obtained with high resolution PET instruments of biological processes such as glucose metabolism appear to demonstrate structural neuroanatomy, they are actually functional images superimposed on structural neuroanatomy. PET ivestigators have always related functional images to discrete anatomical brain regions. As spatial resolution has continued to improve in PET, this has been done with increasing confidence. However, many tracers which bind to specific subsystems of the brain produce images of specific neurochemical systems in the brain and indicate very little in the way of neuroanatomical features. Thus, the idea that increasing spatial resolution in PET will solve image analysis problems is erroneous. Complex analytical systems, such as the one described here, will undoubtedly be used to regionalize and standardize functional image data to an optimal format.
Source: 1992 Feb;:93-101.
Author: Mazziotta JC, Valentino D, Grafton S, Bookstein F, Pelizzari C, Chen G, Toga AW.
Abstract:
For the normal physiological responses of the brain or the pathophysiological changes that accompany disease states to be evaluated, it is necessary to compare data sets between different imaging modalities for individual subjects. Similarly, it is important to compare data between individuals both within and across imaging modalities for individual subjects. In a collaborative project with a number of university groups we have developed a system that allows for the within-subject alignment and registration of three-dimensional data sets obtained from different modalities for the same individual. This analysis takes into account the error induced by image acquisition, registration and alignment with regard to scaling, translation and rotation. A more difficult problem is the between-subject warping of individual brain anatomy to match that of another individual or of an idealized model. If the principles of morphometrics and homologous landmarks are applied, three-dimensional brain warping can provide this type of between-subject comparison. The results of accomplishing these two tasks is a system that allows data obtained in a given individual to be compared across structure and function, as obtained from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and from positron emission tomography (PET), respectively. It also allows comparison of the resultant information with averaged between-subject data from populations of normal individuals or patients with specific neurological disorders. This system provides the means by which to compare quantitative data between individuals in an objective and automated fashion. CONCLUSION: Functional and structural images are not equivalent. Despite the fact that functional images obtained with high resolution PET instruments of biological processes such as glucose metabolism appear to demonstrate structural neuroanatomy, they are actually functional images superimposed on structural neuroanatomy. PET ivestigators have always related functional images to discrete anatomical brain regions. As spatial resolution has continued to improve in PET, this has been done with increasing confidence. However, many tracers which bind to specific subsystems of the brain produce images of specific neurochemical systems in the brain and indicate very little in the way of neuroanatomical features. Thus, the idea that increasing spatial resolution in PET will solve image analysis problems is erroneous. Complex analytical systems, such as the one described here, will undoubtedly be used to regionalize and standardize functional image data to an optimal format.