The Brain Atlas Concordance Problem: Quantitative Comparison of Anatomical Parcellations

Abstract

Many neuroscientific reports reference discrete macro-anatomical regions of the brain which were delineated according to a brain atlas or parcellation protocol. Currently, however, no widely accepted standards exist for partitioning the cortex and subcortical structures, or for assigning labels to the resulting regions, and many procedures are being actively used. Previous attempts to reconcile neuroanatomical nomenclatures have been largely qualitative, focusing on the development of thesauri or simple semantic mappings between terms. Here we take a fundamentally different approach, discounting the names of regions and instead comparing their definitions as spatial entities in an effort to provide more precise quantitative mappings between anatomical entities as defined by different atlases. We develop an analytical framework for studying this brain atlas concordance problem, and apply these methods in a comparison of eight diverse labeling methods used by the neuroimaging community. These analyses result in conditional probabilities that enable mapping between regions across atlases, which also form the input to graph-based methods for extracting higher-order relationships between sets of regions and to procedures for assessing the global similarity between different parcellations of the same brain. At a global scale, the overall results demonstrate a considerable lack of concordance between available parcellation schemes, falling within chance levels for some atlas pairs. At a finer level, this study reveals spatial relationships between sets of defined regions that are not obviously apparent; these are of high potential interest to researchers faced with the challenge of comparing results that were based on these different anatomical models, particularly when coordinate-based data are not available. The complexity of the spatial overlap patterns revealed points to problems for attempts to reconcile anatomical parcellations and nomenclatures using strictly qualitative and/or categorical methods. Detailed results from this study are made available via an interactive web site at http://obart.info.

Cell-type–based model explaining coexpression patterns of genes in the brain

“…1 C1-C3). Brain regions can be approximately recovered by spatial clustering of the ABA (26,28,(29)(30)(31)(32), but estimating the density profile of cell types characterized by their transcription profile can provide a data-driven definition of some brain regions, on which there is no universal agreement (26,28,29).…”

Structural Network Topology Revealed by White Matter Tractography in Cannabis Users: A Graph Theoretical Analysis

“…Of note, since there currently are no widely accepted standards to construct cortical and subcortical regions in the brain, the nodes of structural networks were defined by a predefined template such as the automated anatomical labeling map. However, different parcellation strategies are known to affect connectional maps (Bohland et al, 2009), and there are recent reports showing that different brain parcellation schemes may result in different topological properties of functional brain networks (Wang et al, 2009;Zalesky et al, 2010). In future studies, it will be important to investigate the brain network with more advanced parcellation methodsfor example, smaller and more compact regions to partition FIG.…”

Interoperable atlases of the human brain

“…A striking example of the current situation has been presented in Bohland et al, 2009. This work demonstrates that even undisputed brain regions (e.g., the superior temporal gyrus) may have little correspondence between different atlases.…”