Brain Growth Charts for Quantitative Analysis of Pediatric Clinical Brain MRI Scans with Limited Imaging Pathology.

Background Clinically acquired brain MRI scans represent a valuable but underused resource for investigating neurodevelopment due to their technical heterogeneity and lack of appropriate controls. These barriers have curtailed retrospective studies of clinical brain MRI scans compared with more costly prospectively acquired research-quality brain MRI scans. Purpose To provide a benchmark for neuroanatomic variability in clinically acquired brain MRI scans with limited imaging pathology (SLIPs) and to evaluate if growth charts from curated clinical MRI scans differed from research-quality MRI scans or were influenced by clinical indication for the scan. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of preexisting data, clinical brain MRI SLIPs from an urban pediatric health care system (individuals aged ≤22 years) were scanned across nine 3.0-T MRI scanners. The curation process included manual review of signed radiology reports and automated and manual quality review of images without gross pathology. Global and regional volumetric imaging phenotypes were measured using two image segmentation pipelines, and clinical brain growth charts were quantitatively compared with charts derived from a large set of research controls in the same age range by means of Pearson correlation and age at peak volume. Results The curated clinical data set included 532 patients (277 male; median age, 10 years [IQR, 5-14 years]; age range, 28 days after birth to 22 years) scanned between 2005 and 2020. Clinical brain growth charts were highly correlated with growth charts derived from research data sets (22 studies, 8346 individuals [4947 male]; age range, 152 days after birth to 22 years) in terms of normative developmental trajectories predicted by the models (median r = 0.979). Conclusion The clinical indication of the scans did not significantly bias the output of clinical brain charts. Brain growth charts derived from clinical controls with limited imaging pathology were highly correlated with brain charts from research controls, suggesting the potential of curated clinical MRI scans to supplement research data sets. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Ertl-Wagner and Pai in this issue.

The impact of quality control on cortical morphometry comparisons in autism.

Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality is known to impact and bias neuroanatomical estimates and downstream analysis, including case-control comparisons, and a growing body of work has demonstrated the importance of careful quality control (QC) and evaluated the impact of image and image-processing quality. However, the growing size of typical neuroimaging datasets presents an additional challenge to QC, which is typically extremely time and labour intensive. One of the most important aspects of MRI quality is the accuracy of processed outputs, which have been shown to impact estimated neurodevelopmental trajectories. Here, we evaluate whether the quality of surface reconstructions by FreeSurfer (one of the most widely used MRI processing pipelines) interacts with clinical and demographic factors. We present a tool, FSQC, that enables quick and efficient yet thorough assessment of outputs of the FreeSurfer processing pipeline. We validate our method against other existing QC metrics, including the automated FreeSurfer Euler number, two other manual ratings of raw image quality, and two popular automated QC methods. We show strikingly similar spatial patterns in the relationship between each QC measure and cortical thickness; relationships for cortical volume and surface area are largely consistent across metrics, though with some notable differences. We next demonstrate that thresholding by QC score attenuates but does not eliminate the impact of quality on cortical estimates. Finally, we explore different ways of controlling for quality when examining differences between autistic individuals and neurotypical controls in the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset, demonstrating that inadequate control for quality can alter results of case-control comparisons.