↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Application of Haralick texture features in brain [18F]-florbetapir positron emission tomography without reference region normalization

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Application of Haralick texture features in brain [18F]-florbetapir positron emission tomography without reference region normalization
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s143307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Desmond L Campbell, Hakmook Kang, Sepideh Shokouhi

Abstract

Semi-quantitative image analysis methods in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) require normalization of positron emission tomography (PET) images. However, recent studies have found variabilities associated with reference region selection of amyloid PET images. Haralick features (HFs) generated from the Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) quantify spatial characteristics of amyloid PET radiotracer uptake without the need for intensity normalization. The objective of this study is to calculate several HFs in different diagnostic groups and determine the group differences. All image and metadata were acquired through the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Subjects were grouped in three ways: by clinical diagnosis, by APOE e4 allele, and by Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) score. Several GLCM matrices were calculated for different direction and distances (1-4 mm) from multiple regions on PET images. The HFs, contrast, correlation, dissimilarity, energy, entropy, and homogeneity, were calculated from these GLCMs. Wilcoxon tests and Student t-tests were performed on Haralick features and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) values, respectively, to determine group differences. In addition to statistical testing, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the discrimination performance of the selected regional HFs and the SUVR values. Preliminary results from statistical testing indicate that HFs were capable of distinguishing groups at baseline and follow-up (false discovery rate corrected p<0.05) in particular regions at much higher occurrences than SUVR (81 of 252). Conversely, we observed nearly no significant differences between all groups within ROIs at baseline or follow-up utilizing SUVR. From the ROC analysis, we found that the Energy and Entropy offered the best performance to distinguish Normal versus mild cognitive impairment and ADAS-Cog negative versus ADAS-Cog positive groups. These results suggest that this technique could improve subject stratification in AD drug trials and help to evaluate the disease progression and treatment effects longitudinally without the disadvantages associated with intensity normalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Psychology 4 10%
Engineering 4 10%
Computer Science 3 8%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,109
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,764
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#30
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.