Effect of Non-rigid Registration Algorithms on Deformation Based Morphometry: A Comparative Study with Control and Williams Syndrome Subjects

摘要

Deformation Based Morphometry (DBM) is a widely used method for characterizing anatomical differences across groups. DBM is based on the analysis of the deformation fields generated by non-rigid registration algorithms, which warp the individual volumes to a DBM atlas. Although several studies have compared non-rigid registration algorithms for segmentation tasks, few studies have compared the effect of the registration algorithms on group differences that may be uncovered through DBM. In this study, we compared group atlas creation and DBM results obtained with five well-established non-rigid registration algorithms using thirteen subjects with Williams Syndrome (WS) and thirteen Normal Control (NC) subjects. The five non-rigid registration algorithms include: (1) The Adaptive Bases Algorithm (ABA); (2) The Image Registration Toolkit (IRTK); (3) The FSL Nonlinear Image Registration Tool (FSL); (4) The Automatic Registration Tool (ART); and (5) the normalization algorithm available in SPM8. Results indicate that the choice of algorithm has little effect on the creation of group atlases. However, regions of differences between groups detected with DBM vary from algorithm to algorithm both qualitatively and quantitatively. The unique nature of the data set used in this study also permits comparison of visible anatomical differences between the groups and regions of difference detected by each algorithm. Results show that the interpretation of DBM results is difficult. Four out of the five algorithms we have evaluated detect bilateral differences between the two groups in the insular cortex, the basal ganglia, orbitofrontal cortex, as well as in the cerebellum. These correspond to differences that have been reported in the literature and that are visible in our samples. But our results also show that some algorithms detect regions that are not detected by the others and that the extent of the detected regions varies from algorithm to algorithm. These results suggest that using more than one algorithm when performing DBM studies would increase confidence in the results. Properties of the algorithms such as the similarity measure they maximize and the regularity of the deformation fields, as well as the location of differences detected with DBM, also need to be taken into account in the interpretation process.