2019
DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2019.00061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recommendations for Processing Head CT Data

Abstract: Many research applications of neuroimaging use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). As such, recommendations for image analysis and standardized imaging pipelines exist. Clinical imaging, however, relies heavily on X-ray computed tomography (CT) scans for diagnosis and prognosis. Currently, there is only one image processing pipeline for head CT, which focuses mainly on head CT data with lesions. We present tools and a complete pipeline for processing CT data, focusing on open-source solutions, that focus on head… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pipeline includes five containerized modules, including neural network-based labeling of image acquisition type ( Szegedy et al, 2015 ; Mohammadian Foroushani et al, 2020a ), DICOM to NIfTI conversion ( Li, 2016 ), FSL-based preregistration for skull stripping ( Jenkinson, 2011 ), ANTS-based registration of longitudinal brain masks ( Avants et al, 2009 ), U-Net-based segmentation of CSF ( Chen et al, 2016 ), and its volumetric calculation ( Dhar et al, 2020 ). This parallels the recent recommendations for processing head CT data ( Muschelli, 2019 ). After finishing the process, each executed container uses XNAT’s web-based application programming interface (API) to store its output back into SNIPR.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The pipeline includes five containerized modules, including neural network-based labeling of image acquisition type ( Szegedy et al, 2015 ; Mohammadian Foroushani et al, 2020a ), DICOM to NIfTI conversion ( Li, 2016 ), FSL-based preregistration for skull stripping ( Jenkinson, 2011 ), ANTS-based registration of longitudinal brain masks ( Avants et al, 2009 ), U-Net-based segmentation of CSF ( Chen et al, 2016 ), and its volumetric calculation ( Dhar et al, 2020 ). This parallels the recent recommendations for processing head CT data ( Muschelli, 2019 ). After finishing the process, each executed container uses XNAT’s web-based application programming interface (API) to store its output back into SNIPR.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The procedures used to process the brain CT images analyzed in this study followed those described previously. 17 , 18 , 19 ) The CT data stored in DICOM format were converted into NIFTI (Neuroimaging Informatics Technology Initiative) format using dcm2niix software (https://github.com/rordenlab/dcm2niix, accessed July 31, 2021). 20 ) The brain image analysis package FSL 21 ) version 6.0.4 (https://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki, accessed April 30, 2021) was used for further analyses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As recommended in previous reports, 17 , 18 , 19 ) CT images in NIFTI format were further processed by thresholding Hounsfield units (HU) in the range 0–100 using FSLUTILS. By using FLIRT, 22 , 23 ) the processed CT data were then spatially normalized in reference to a previously reported standard CT template.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In gantry-tilted scans, Elastix affine-registration was applied. 11 For better scan co-registration, the scans were re-sliced to obtain a 2.5 mm slice thickness if the slice thickness was larger than 2.5 mm. Poor quality scans were defined as scans with movement artefacts, incomplete field of view, severe beam hardening artefacts, and/or metal artefacts.…”
Section: Thrombus Imaging Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%