msmcdespot : follow-ups
DESCRIPTION
MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups. November 1, 2010. Where We Are. Baseline cross-section conclusions: DVF is sensitive to early stages of MS where other measures are not DVF correlates with EDSS (R^2 = 0.37 in NAWM) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MSmcDESPOT: Follow-Ups
November 1, 2010
![Page 2: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Where We Are
• Baseline cross-section conclusions:– DVF is sensitive to early stages of MS where other
measures are not– DVF correlates with EDSS (R^2 = 0.37 in NAWM)– The addition of a quantitative measure significantly
improves EDSS prediction compared to volumetric atrophy measures alone
• 1yr follow-up scans– 23/26 patients scanned– 5/26 normals scanned and more incoming
![Page 3: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Patient Overview
![Page 4: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Patient Overview
![Page 5: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Patient Overview
![Page 6: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Patient Overview
![Page 7: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Patient Overview
![Page 8: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Correlation Plots
![Page 9: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Correlation Plots
![Page 10: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Discussion
• Our correlations for DV and DVF were consistent between the baseline and follow up
• Change in DV has a large scale– Could mean we’re quite sensitive to changes in the brain– Need to quantify how much DV varies due to repeatability
error• DV increased for almost every patient, only P020 had
a drop (not shown because no EDSS data)• Currently, we unexpectedly observe a negative
correlation between change in EDSS and change in DV
![Page 11: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Normals
• N004, N008, N012• First glimpse at the repeatability of the DV measure
and mcDESPOT-derived MWF maps• We would like to see little change between the
baseline and follow up MWF mapsMean MWF Baseline Std. Dev. Mean MWF 1yr Std. Dev.
N004 0.103 0.0955 0.0952 0.0896
N008 0.125 0.0982 0.0921 0.0882
N012 0.0939 0.0935 0.0834 0.0877
![Page 12: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Correlations
![Page 13: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Correlations
![Page 14: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Correlations
![Page 15: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Histograms
![Page 16: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Histograms
![Page 17: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Histograms
![Page 18: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
DVBaseline DV (mm^3)
1yr DV (mm^3)
N004 165 3072
N008 0 1636
N012 467 1158
P022 1217 1802
• Using the old baseline mean and std. dev. MWF maps, computed DV for the new normal scans
• Disconcertingly large increase in DV
• Why?– Biased using the baseline
mean derived from normals to get their baseline DV
– Follow-up scan quality?
![Page 19: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Baseline SPGR_fa13 Images
![Page 20: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
1yr SPGR_fa13 Images
![Page 21: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Discussion
• I would argue that the reduction in quality in the follow-up scans is comparable between the normals and P022
• Are there ways to deal with the bias?– Cross-validation
• Try many random subsets of the normal population to generate mean and std. dev., choose the map pair that minimizes total DV among all normals
– Ensemble methods• Use all the map pairs and for each, generate a DV mask, then a
voxel is considered demyelinated only if a majority of the DV masks have it as demyelinated
![Page 22: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
MSmcDESPOT: Looking at Maps
October 29, 2010
![Page 23: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Motivation
• Thus far we’ve been studying DV and DVF, which collapses all of our data into a single metric for each patient
• One of the key advantages of mcDESPOT is that it acquires whole brain maps
• We should start looking at our data as whole brain maps– Perhaps different subtypes of MS are associated
with different spatial distributions of MWF
![Page 24: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Baseline: Mean MWF Normals
![Page 25: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Baseline: Mean MWF CIS
![Page 26: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Baseline: Mean MWF RRMS
![Page 27: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Baseline: Mean MWF SPMS
![Page 28: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Baseline: Mean MWF PPMS
![Page 29: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Discussion
• There’s clearly a drop in overall MWF as we progress from CIS to RR to SP to PP
• Can’t really discern any favoring for locations of low MWF other than around the ventricles– DV maps would probably show this better than
anything, should generate a probabilistic DV map
![Page 30: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Baseline: Std. Dev. MWF Normals
![Page 31: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Baseline: Std. Dev. MWF CIS
![Page 32: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Baseline: Std. Dev. MWF RRMS
![Page 33: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Baseline: Std. Dev. MWF SPMS
![Page 34: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Baseline: Std. Dev. MWF PPMS
![Page 35: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Discussion• In normals, MWF has a much lower standard deviation in WM areas• RR patients seem to have an overall lower standard deviation than
CIS– One interpretation might be that CIS patients are only starting to lose
myelin so there is a lot of variability among them• PP is by far the worst, the variance of MWF among the subjects
seems to be the same throughout the brain– This means that the amount and location of myelin lost among PP
patients varies wildly• Of course standard deviation is a group based measure, not sure
about the direct clinical application for one patient• The 1yr cross-section maps looks like the baseline
![Page 36: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Difference Maps
• For each subject, the difference map was computed as MWF_1yr – MWF_baseline– Then the mean difference between patients was
computed for each subtype as well as the standard deviation of the differences
• The following maps may be hard to look at, they are highly non-traditional and probably it’s the first time anyone has ever seen such images
![Page 37: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Difference: Mean CIS
![Page 38: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Difference: Mean RRMS
![Page 39: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Difference: Mean SPMS
![Page 40: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Difference: Mean SPMS
![Page 41: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Discussion
• There is a clear different between CIS and RR, with RR patients having much larger drops in MWF
• Actually, I feel like RR patients have the most actively changing MWF among all the subtypes looking at these images– Consistent with early stages being the most
active? Have to check the ages of our RR patients.
![Page 42: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Ratio Maps
• For each subject, the ratio map was computed as MWF_1yr/MWF_baseline– Then the mean ratio between patients was computed for
each subtype as well as the standard deviation of the ratios• These maps are ugly, it is tough to tell what’s going on
– Ignore the white fringing around the brain, caused by regions of low MWF
– Inside the brain, they would indicate places where lesions with low MWF are• Maybe even they show lesions that have remyelinated a little as
(not as small MWF)/(really small MWF) = big number
![Page 43: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Ratio: Mean CIS
![Page 44: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Ratio: Mean RRMS
![Page 45: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Ratio: Mean SPMS
![Page 46: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Ratio: Mean PPMS
![Page 47: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Discussion
• Hard to decipher these– CIS seems the most uniform, so the percent
change in MWF is perhaps low, which may not be clear based on just the mean difference maps
![Page 48: MSmcDESPOT : Follow-Ups](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816178550346895dd105e5/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Thoughts
• This is more data than someone can humanly process, need to identify key regions
• Unsupervised exploratory data mining techniques could be worth pursuing, since our outcomes of EDSS and ΔEDSS are problematic– Goal here is to find patterns in the data rather
than trying to predict an outcome