Nicolas Vibet1, 2, Franois De Guio, 23, Aurlien Monnet4, Nadine Girard5, Stphane Lehricy, 26, Sophie Prusat7, Carole Dufouil8, Christine Delmaire, 24, Cyril Poupon, 29, Marie Chupin1, 2
1CRICM, UPMC URMR_S975, INSERM U975, CNRS UMR7225, ICM, Paris, France; 2CATI, multicentre neuroimaging platform, Paris, France; 3LNAO, Neurospin, CEA, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; 4Department of Neuroradiology, APHP, Lille, France; 5Department of Neuroradiology, Hopital Timone, Marseille, France; 6CRICM & CENIR, UPMC/CNRS/INSERM/ICM, Paris, France; 7U593, INSERM, Bordeaux, France; 8U897, INSERM, Bordeaux, France; 9LRMN, Neurospin, CEA, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Intensity non-uniformity is often largely visible in 3DT1 acquistions; it can lead to difficulties in advanced data analysis. Several methods are available, from manufacturers or post processing tools, but their use in multicentre study has yet to be evaluated; we compared the performances of manufacturers intensity non uniformity correction tools with two available post processing methods (BrainVISA and SPM) for three scanners (Siemens 1,5T and 3T, Philips 3T). This analysis is based on four quality indices computed on the image and its itensity histogram. In the framework of multicentre analyses, post-processing methods appear to be better adapted and perform satisfactorily.
Keywords