Joint-Label Fusion Brain Atlases for Dementia Research in Down Syndrome

1. INTRODUCTION

Down Syndrome (DS), a genetic disorder caused by abnormal cell division resulting in a full or partial extra copy of chromosome 21, is the most common chromosomal disorder with an incidence rate of approximately 1 in every 700 babies born (Parker et al., 2010). Trisomy 21 impacts neurological development in DS leading to phenotypic abnormalities and cognitive deterioration, affecting memory and intellectual abilities (Gardiner et al., 2010; Silverman, 2007). Further, developmental abnormalities impact brain region growth, resulting in brain morphometry that is, on average, different from neurotypicals’ (Lee et al., 2016).

Unlike other populations, individuals with DS have distinctive brain characteristics and craniofacial phenotypes including microcephaly, platybasia, increased biparietal to occipitofrontal diameter ratio, and approximately 20% reduction in brain volume compared to age-matched controls (Rodrigues et al., 2019). Stereological measurements of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) suggest an overall reduction in the cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres in individuals with DS compared to healthy age-matched neurotypicals (Raz et al., 1995; Rodrigues et al., 2019; Weis et al., 1991). Individuals with DS and dementia have MRI findings that are comparable to AD patients’ (Prasher et al., 2003; Radhakrishnan and Towbin, 2014) including diffuse cortical atrophy in the parietal lobes, broadening of the marginal branch of the cingulate sulcus, central, post-central, intraparietal, parieto-occipital sulcus, entorhinal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus (Ballard et al., 2016; Lai and Williams, 1989). Additional MRI evidence shows that after correcting for total brain volume, there is a significant reduction in total brain, gray matter, ventricles, and left amygdala and hippocampus in participants with DS compared to healthy neurotypicals and there’s even more reduction in those with dementia and DS when compared to healthy controls (Pearlson et al., 1998). Further, Computerized Tomography (CT) findings show increased atrophy in participants with DS and dementia compared to those without dementia (Devinsky et al., 1990; LeMay and Alvarez, 1990; Lott and Lai, 1982).

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has been used to identify amyloid deposition in the brain and is a widely used neuroimaging tool for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) research (Quigley et al., 2011; Rabinovici and Jagust, 2009). Individuals with DS are at a higher risk of developing neuropathological phenotypes that are indistinguishable from AD; about fifty percent of the population develop dementia at age 40 and seventy percent at age 60 and up (Lott & Head, 2001; SCHAPIRO and B, 1986; Schapiro et al., 1992). The early progression of AD in participants with DS is thought to be associated with the expression of amyloid-beta (Aβ) (Doran et al., 2017; Moncaster et al., 2010) and thus measuring brain Aβ accurately may help to identify those at risk of early transition to dementia (Keator et al., 2020a). Due to the lack of structural information in amyloid PET scans, researchers investigating regional Aβ burden typically obtain an MRI scan to evaluate amyloid distribution and identify regional anatomic boundaries, which serves as a brain atlas. However, researchers face many challenges in acquiring MRI scans of intellectually-imparied populations (Ali et al., 2013; Brockmeyer, 1999; Wullink et al., 2009). Often the acquisition of an MRI scan is not possible in these populations because of contraindications or the data is unusable due to significant motion artifacts, incomplete sequences related to claustrophobia and/or general discomfort, or related problems. When an MRI is not available, researchers use one of several canonical brain atlases, often constructed from a single, young, healthy individual, or groups of individuals, whose brain morphometry is vastly different from those with DS. Such atlases may not accurately reflect DS morphology thus result in inaccurate quantification of regional amyloid binding.

Neuroimaging research in DS provides evidence of distinctive structural characteristics in addition to other risk factors, like amyloid expression, that are thought to be linked to the early progression of AD like dementia (Annus et al., 2016; Cole et al., 2017; Mann et al., 1990). Investigations of AD in DS rely on our ability to accurately detect Aβ in implicated regions of the brain which provides understanding of amyloid distribution in the development of dementia both efficiently and effectively. Given the challenges researchers face in structural brain mapping and the complexity and variation in atrophy, shape, and size of the human brain, accurate structural brain templates that account for such variations and represent the population accurately are required (Toga and Thompson, 2002).

In this manuscript, we created a series of probabilistic disease-state (i.e. cognitively stable (CS), mild cognitive impairment (MCI-DS), or dementia (DEM)) and disorder-specific (i.e. DS) brain atlases from participants with DS. We evaluated the accuracy of using these group-based atlases to compute regional amyloid distributions by disease status compared to using individualized MRI-based segmentations (IM) or using a group atlas constructed from similar-aged cognitively-stable neurotypical participants. We hypothesized that using group atlases which match the disease state and disorder will result in regional amyloid measurements that are most sensitive to disease status and most consistent with the ground-truth individualized MRI-based segmentations.

2. METHODS

3. RESULTS

3.1 Atlas Structure Comparisons

To quantify the overall structural differences between the atlases, we computed mean squared error (MSE) between the DSG (disease-state-specific - Down Syndrome), CS-DS (cognitively stable - Down Syndrome), and CS-NT (cognitively stable - neurotypical) atlases compared to the individual Freesurfer segmentations (IM). MSE scores were normalized to the MSE score of comparing the JLF atlas to a matrix of zeros, scaled to percentage, and compared across the atlases for each diagnostic group (section 3.1.1) using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s honestly significant difference (TukeyHSD) testing in RStudio (version 1.1447; RRID:SCR_001905). P-values from the overall ANOVA were adjusted using the Bonferroni-Hommel method (Hommel, 1988). Box plots of the results are shown in Figures 2 and 3. A visual example of the DSG, CS-DS, and CS-NT atlases compared to a selected IM atlas is included in the supplemental material (S1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Mean Square Error (MSE) by Atlas. Higher percentage of MSE score indicates worse match between our atlas and the individual MRI-based Freesurfer segmentations (IM). Asterisks identify results that are significant at p<0.05 after adjusting for the p-value, whereas “n.s.” indicates non-significant.

3.1.1 Comparisons Across Atlases within Diagnostic Groups

Here we evaluate the overall structural difference in atlas labels between the Freesurfer segmentations and each group atlas across the diagnostic groups. The overall ANOVA models of the CS (Figure 2, panel A) and MCI-DS (Figure 2, panel B) diagnostic groups were not significantly different across the atlases. In comparison, the DEM overall model was significant across the atlases (F(2,30) = 8.669, p_adj.<.003; Figure 2, panel C). A post hoc Tukey test showed that, in the DEM group, both the CS-DS and the CS-NT atlases had a mean MSE score that was significantly different from the DSG atlas (CS-DS vs. DSG (t(20) = −8.013, p_adj. < .006); CS-NT vs. DSG (t(20) = −9.001, p_adj. < .002)). While no significant differences were observed when comparing the CS-DS and the CS-NT atlases.

In summary, both the CS and MCI-DS groups’ average MSE scores remained consistent across each of the atlases, indicating that structural differences between the group atlases and the Freesurfer individual segmentations (IM) are likely insignificant. Interestingly, in the DEM group, the DSG atlas had a significantly higher mean MSE score than both CS-DS and CS-NT atlases compared to IM, suggesting there are more structural differences between the DSG atlas and the individual Freesurfer segmentations than there was in either CS-DS or CS-NT atlases. Upon further interrogation, we find the structural differences are predominantly on the region borders (supplemental material S1) and that differences in the DEM group (Figure 3, panel C) are likely due to brain atrophy resulting in the DSG atlas being less consistent with each individual IM segmentation.

3.2 PET Region of Interest (ROI) Comparisons

3.2.1 DSG vs. IM Atlases

Given the structural differences found in section 3.1, we suspect such differences could impact our PET regional averages and potentially result in false positive or negative inferences about disease progression relative to those made when using IM atlases. To evaluate differences in regional PET measurements between the DSG and IM atlases, we used fixed effects linear regression. Participants’ data within a 99.8% confidence interval (+/-3 standard deviations from the mean) were included in the analysis and reported. Data outside of this range were deemed outliers and not analyzed. Results of the overall model are reported in Table 2 for regions that were significant at the p<0.05 uncorrected threshold. Prior to p-value adjustments, the dorsal striatum, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and anterior cingulate were significantly different in PET ROI mean value between atlases. After adjusting the p-values for multiple comparisons, the dorsal striatum remained significant.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2:

Overall model statistics showing the relationship between the difference in amyloid between the atlases and the average amyloid in each region of interest, significant at p<0.05 unadjusted. Reported in the table are the brain region (i.e. ROI), F-value statistics, lower limit, upper limit, Standard Error (SE), pvalue, and adjusted p-value respectively for significant regions surviving the unadjusted p<0.05 significance threshold.

Results for each significant ROI were visualized using Bland Altman plots (Giavarina, 2015); Figure 4). Regression lines for each diagnosis are shown as a function of the difference (DSG-IM) between the PET ROI averages computed using each atlas (y-axis) and the average amyloid load across both atlases (x-axis). Differences that are closer to zero on the y-axis indicate better correspondence between the average regional amyloid sampled from both atlases. Regression lines with positive slope indicate an increasing difference between the two atlases as a function of higher amyloid load whereas a regression line with zero slope and zero difference (y-axis) would indicate perfect correspondence across the range of amyloid between both atlases.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Bland Altman plots of significant regional differences in average amyloid between DSG and IM atlases. Each figure illustrates the relationship between the difference in amyloid measurements (DSG-IM) on the y-axis and the average of amyloid load on the xaxis. Regression lines with positive slope indicate an increasing difference between the two atlases as a function of higher amyloid.

3.2.2 PET ROI Comparisons CS-DS vs. IM Atlases

The results from section 3.2.1 suggest that regional PET amyloid measures are reasonably consistent between the DSG and IM atlases with the exception of a few regions. Here we evaluate whether we need to account for disease status by comparing an atlas created from the cognitively-stable participants with DS (CS-DS) and sampling regional PET averages in participants with a diagnosis of MCI-DS or DEM. We expect that due to disease-related atrophy and comorbidities, using a group atlas based on those who are cognitively stable, without a more advanced form of dementia, would result in a less consistent match with the ground truth IM atlases compared to the DSG atlas. The analysis was performed using the same approach as the comparisons in 3.2.1. Results from the overall model that were significant at the p<0.05 unadjusted threshold are shown in Table 3 and the corresponding Bland Altman plots in Figure 5. Significant regions included the dorsal striatum, inferior temporal, middle temporal, and lateral orbitofrontal cortex. Similar to the DSG atlas results, dorsal striatum was the only region that remained significant after p-value adjustment; although, in this analysis we see temporal regions, known to be among the most affected by disease-related atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease, significant before adjustment. In contrast, the Bland Altman plots (Figure 5) show reasonably consistent regression lines between the MCI-DS and DEM groups suggesting it may not be necessary to use atlases that account for disease severity.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3:

Overall model statistics reported showing the interaction between the difference in amyloid load and the average of amyloid load in each region of interest as using IM vs. CS-DS atlas. Reported in the table are the brain region (i.e. ROI), F-value statistics, lower limit, upper limit, Standard Error (SE), p-value, and adjusted p-value respectively for significant regions surviving the unadjusted p<0.05 significance threshold..

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5:

Bland Altman plots of significant regional differences in average amyloid between CS-DS and IM atlases. Each figure illustrates the relationship between the difference in amyloid measurements (CS-DS - IM) on the y-axis and the average of amyloid load on the x-axis. Regression lines with positive slope indicate an increasing difference between the two atlases as a function of higher amyloid.

3.2.3 PET ROI Comparisons CS-NT vs. IM Atlases

Expanding upon the results from sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 which evaluated atlases made from participants with DS, with/without accounting for disease state, we now run similar experiments using an atlas made from cognitively-stable neurotypical participants of similar age. Due to brain morphological differences in participants with DS, we expect using a group atlas based on neurotypical participants will be less consistent in regional amyloid measures compared to our ground truth IM atlases. Results from the overall model that were significant at p<0.05 unadjusted are shown in Table 4 and the corresponding Bland Altman plots in Figure 6. Interestingly, similar regions to both the DSG and CS-DS atlas comparisons were identified as different from the IM atlas at the p<0.05 unadjusted threshold: dorsal striatum, middle temporal, inferior temporal along with an additional region: entorhinal cortex. Further, two additional regions approached significance: superior temporal and hippocampus. After p-value adjustments both the dorsal striatum and middle temporal lobe remained significant, with the entorhinal cortex approaching an adjusted significance level of p<0.05.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4:

overall model statistics reported showing the interaction between the difference in amyloid load and the average in amyloid load in each region of interest (ROI) as using IM vs. CS-NT atlas. Reported in the table are the brain region (i.e. ROI), F-value statistics, lower limit, upper limit, Standard Error (SE), p-value, and adjusted p-value respectively for significant regions surviving the unadjusted p<0.05 significance threshold.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6:

Bland Altman plots of significant regional differences in average amyloid between CS-NT and IM atlases. Each figure illustrates the relationship between the difference in amyloid measurements (CS-NT - IM) on the y-axis and the average of amyloid load on the x-axis. Regression lines with positive slope indicate an increasing difference between the two atlases as a function of higher amyloid.

4. DISCUSSION

In this study we created a series of probabilistic group atlases (i.e. disease-state-specific - Down Syndrome (DSG), cognitively stable - Down Syndrome (CS-DS), and cognitively stable - neurotypical (CS-NT)) and evaluated their accuracy compared to Freesurfer individual MRI segmentations (IM) when measuring regional amyloid. We hypothesized that using disease state and diagnosis-specific group (DSG) atlases would best match the ground truth IM atlas measurements, followed by CS-DS, which accounts for disorder-specific differences in brain morphology. In evaluating the structural differences in the group atlases compared to the IM atlases, we found no differences across the MCI-DS and CS groups; whereas, the DEM group had higher MSE values using the DSG atlas driven primarily by differences in each anatomical region’s boundaries.

With respect to regional amyloid measurements, we found, generally, that both the DSG and CS-DS atlases did quite well in matching IM atlas measurements with exception of the few regions identified (section 3.2). As expected, we found increasingly more differences from the IM atlases as we moved from using diagnosis and disease-state specific atlases (DSG) to disorder-specific (CS-DS) and finally the neurotypical atlas (CS-NT). For practical use, differences in regional amyloid magnitude is not necessarily significant with respect to understanding disease progression if one’s inference about differences in amyloid between cohorts doesn’t change. We therefore evaluated comparisons across the three diagnostic groups when using each of the atlases, focusing on instances when our interpretation of the differences would have changed if we were using the group atlases (section 3.3). In these comparisons we found quite a few instances where one might implicate different regions in AD disease progression if using group atlases. These effects were confined to diagnoses that were adjacent to one another in terms of disease progression (e.g. MCI-DS vs. CS, DEM vs. MCI-DS) and thus are likely to have more overlap in their amyloid distributions and smaller differences across groups. Since the two diagnostic groups (i.e. MCI-DS and CS) are adjacent, we suspect the CS sample may have included individuals with regional amyloid distributions that are similar to those in the cohort with an MCI-DS diagnosis but had not yet experienced sufficient symptoms to satisfy the criteria for MCI-DS. One limitation to note is that it’s unclear whether Freesurfer IM segmentations are capturing regional boundaries more accurately than the joint-label-fusion atlases. We suspect Freesurfer is better able to capture individual variability in anatomical region boundaries because they are based on segmenting an individual’s anatomical MRI but there may be additional variability introduced through the complex optimizations performed by Freesurfer in detecting these boundaries. Generally, the use of group and/or standardized atlases are thought to reduce subject-to-subject variability compared to individual segmentations (Thompson et al., 2000). Unlike typical Freesurfer IM segmentations that rely on prior information obtained through regression coefficient predictions and high-dimensional Bayesian optimizations (Chen et al., 2019), our group atlases use identical atlas regions (e.g. hippocampus) warped to reflect the anatomy of the participant.

In looking more closely at the regions that resulted in alternate inference in the transition from CS to MCI-DS, we observed that the dorsal striatum changed in significance when using the group atlases in addition to being the only region to survive adjusted p-value thresholds in the regional PET amyloid results (section 3.2). Autopsy studies suggest early amyloid binding in the dorsal striatum, in some cases earlier than binding in the temporal cortex, foreshadows the onset of dementia in the CS and MCI-DS diagnostic groups (Abrahamson et al., 2019; Cardemil, 2017; Keator et al., 2020b; Klunk et al., 2007). Further, there is evidence suggesting brain atrophy in striatal regions in participants with DS are consistent with findings from AD studies in neurotypical populations (Annus et al., 2017). In addition to autopsy studies, in-vivo human neuroimaging studies in DS have also shown amyloid in the striatum around 40 years of age (Handen et al., 2012; Hartley et al., 2014). Since regional amyloid retention positively correlates with regional cell loss and brain atrophy (Teipel and Hampel, 2006), we expect the early amyloid load and structural atrophy in the dorsal striatum are associated with increased variability across our participants in this region relative to other brain structures. Additional studies are needed to investigate the association between early amyloid binding and atrophy in the dorsal striatum and the impact of this association on trajectories of AD.

In summary, both the disease specific and diagnosis specific group atlases (i.e. DSG and CS-DS) performed better than the neurotypical group atlas (CS-NT) in generally replicating the regional amyloid measurements obtained from the Freesurfer individual segmentations. Overall we suggest using the CS-DS atlas as it appears to be as accurate as the DSG atlas for use in this population and better captures the overall variability in atrophy across the diagnostic groups. Each of the atlases (DSG, CS-DS, and CS-NT) along with the posterior probability maps for each region of interest (ROI) from the joint-label-fusion algorithm are made publicly available at XXXX. The Down Syndrome dataset used for this study is made available by the ABC-DS consortium (Crawford, n.d.). All source code for this project has been made available in a GitHub repository (XXXX). Future work will focus on longitudinal group atlases to better understand the effects of disease-related brain changes on the accuracy of group atlas-based measurements and on building group atlases of younger cohorts with Down Syndrome.