Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticleNeurodegenerative Disorder Imaging
Open Access

Prediction of Surgical Outcomes in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus by MR Elastography

Pragalv Karki, Matthew C. Murphy, Petrice M. Cogswell, Matthew L. Senjem, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Benjamin D. Elder, Avital Perry, Christopher S. Graffeo, Fredric B Meyer, Clifford R. Jack, Richard L. Ehman and John Huston
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2024, 45 (3) 328-334; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8108
Pragalv Karki
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Pragalv Karki
Matthew C. Murphy
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew C. Murphy
Petrice M. Cogswell
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Petrice M. Cogswell
Matthew L. Senjem
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew L. Senjem
Jonathan Graff-Radford
bDepartment of Neurology (J.G.-R.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan Graff-Radford
Benjamin D. Elder
cDepartment of Neurologic Surgery (B.D.E., C.S.G., F.B.M.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Benjamin D. Elder
Avital Perry
dDepartment of Neurosurgery (A.P.), Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher S. Graffeo
cDepartment of Neurologic Surgery (B.D.E., C.S.G., F.B.M.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
eDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.S.G.), University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christopher S. Graffeo
Fredric B Meyer
cDepartment of Neurologic Surgery (B.D.E., C.S.G., F.B.M.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clifford R. Jack Jr.
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Clifford R. Jack Jr.
Richard L. Ehman
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Huston III
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.K., M.C.M., P.M.C., M.L.S., J.G.-R., C.R.J., R.L.E., J.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John Huston III
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Normal pressure hydrocephalus is a treatable cause of dementia associated with distinct mechanical property signatures in the brain as measured by MR elastography. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that specific anatomic features of normal pressure hydrocephalus are associated with unique mechanical property alterations. Then, we tested the hypothesis that summary measures of these mechanical signatures can be used to predict clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR elastography and structural imaging were performed in 128 patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus and 44 control participants. Patients were categorized into 4 subgroups based on their anatomic features. Surgery outcome was acquired for 68 patients. Voxelwise modeling was performed to detect regions with significantly different mechanical properties between each group. Mechanical signatures were summarized using pattern analysis and were used as features to train classification models and predict shunt outcomes for 2 sets of feature spaces: a limited 2D feature space that included the most common features found in normal pressure hydrocephalus and an expanded 20-dimensional (20D) feature space that included features from all 4 morphologic subgroups.

RESULTS: Both the 2D and 20D classifiers performed significantly better than chance for predicting clinical outcomes with estimated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.66 and 0.77, respectively (P < .05, permutation test). The 20D classifier significantly improved the diagnostic OR and positive predictive value compared with the 2D classifier (P < .05, permutation test).

CONCLUSIONS: MR elastography provides further insight into mechanical alterations in the normal pressure hydrocephalus brain and is a promising, noninvasive method for predicting surgical outcomes in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus.

ABBREVIATIONS:

AUROC
area under the receiver operating curve
DESH
disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid hydrocephalus
DOR
diagnostic OR
FDR
false discovery rate
HCTS
high-convexity tight sulci
MRE
MR elastography
NPH
normal pressure hydrocephalus
NPV
negative predictive value
PPV
positive predictive value
SVM
support vector machine

Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a CSF dynamics disorder1 with imaging features of enlarged ventricles and clinical symptoms of cognitive decline, gait disturbance, and urinary incontinence.2 NPH has an estimated prevalence of 2.1% for ages 65 and 70 and 8.9%3 for ages 80 and older. Overlapping symptoms with Alzheimer disease4 or Parkinson disease5 could lead to misdiagnosis of NPH. Contrary to these proteinopathies, NPH may be treated with ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery6 with sustained improvement in about 80% of cases.7,8 Surgery can even reverse the symptoms of progressive dementia.9⇓-11 However, due to the invasive nature of surgery, improving the predictability of outcomes is imperative.

A spinal tap test is commonly used to predict shunt outcome, with a high positive predictive value (PPV) of 92% but a low negative predictive value (NPV) of 37%12 An improved area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and diagnostic OR (DOR) can be achieved by extended lumbar drainage and intracranial pressure measurements.13 These methods, however, have higher rates of infection and complications14⇓⇓-17 and are less widely available than the tap test. On the basis of a meta-analysis of several radiologic predictors, only callosal angle and periventricular white matter changes could significantly differentiate between shunt responders and nonresponders, though with low DOR values of 1.88 and 1.01, respectively.18 A machine learning method developed on intracranial pressure and electrocardiogram features during the lumbar infusion test demonstrated excellent accuracy of 82% and an AUROC of 0.89.19 However, a noninvasive, safe, and practical alternative is still needed. A machine learning approach based on pattern analysis20 of MR elastography (MRE) data is a promising noninvasive, radiologic method for predicting the outcome of shunt surgeries.

MRE allows noninvasive evaluation of tissue mechanical properties using acoustic waves.21 Previous studies have demonstrated that the mechanical properties of the brain are altered by NPH.22⇓-24 These alterations occur in specific patterns, the presence or absence of which can distinguish patients with NPH from healthy controls and those with Alzheimer disease.20 Past MRE studies evaluated mechanical changes in the brain due to NPH with cases considered as a single group. However, patients with NPH have different morphologic phenotypes that can be assessed with MR imaging.25⇓-27

In this study, we first tested the hypothesis that the different morphologic phenotypes of NPH are associated with unique mechanical signatures. Then, we tested the hypothesis that those mechanical features could improve prediction of the clinical response to shunt surgery compared with the use of mechanical features derived from consideration of patients with NPH as a single group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient Recruitment

We retrospectively identified 137 patients who underwent 3T MR imaging for suspected NPH from April 2014 to December 2022. Nine cases were excluded because of comorbidities, including contusions and meningiomas, or technical failure during tissue segmentation caused by exceptionally large ventricles (particularly in congenital cases). From the remaining 128 suspected cases, 68 participants who had normal opening pressure (<25 cm CSF) during lumbar puncture and gait improvement with the spinal tap test underwent treatment with ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. Of these patients, 54 were shunt responders, and 14 were nonresponders. Shunt responders were defined as patients who had improvement in gait, cognition, or urinary incontinence at >1 month after shunt placement per neurology or neurosurgery clinical notes. The clinician’s assessment of improvement was based on patient reports, gait examination/analysis, and/or mental status examinations.

Data from a group of cognitively healthy controls were included from a previously published study.28 These participants were recruited from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and had previously undergone Pittsburgh Compound B-PET imaging to determine that they were free of a significant amyloid load.

Image Acquisition

Participants were scanned once on either a GE Signa HDx or GE Discovery MR750W or a Siemens Magnetom Prisma scanner. The acquisitions were comparable among the scanners and included MRE and structural imaging. MRE was performed using a flow-compensated, spin-echo, echo-planar imaging pulse sequence. Shear waves were introduced via a pneumatic actuator at a frequency of 60 Hz. Structural imaging included a whole-brain T1-weighted MPRAGE or 3D inversion-recovery spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition.

The acquisition parameters for the patients with NPH on the 3T GE Healthcare scanner were the following: T1-weighted MPRAGE: TR/TE/TI = 6.3/2.6/900 ms, flip angle = 8°, FOV = 260 × 260 mm, matrix = 256 × 256, section thickness = 1.2 mm; and MRE: TR/TE = 3601.2/57.3 ms, FOV = 240 × 240 mm, matrix = 72 × 72, section thickness = 3 mm. The acquisition parameters for the control participants were the following: T1-weighted 3D inversion-recovery spoiled gradient-recalled: TR/TE = 6.3/2.8 ms, flip angle = 11°, FOV = 270 × 270 mm, matrix = 256 × 256, section thickness = 1.2 mm; and MRE: TR/TE = 3600/62 ms, FOV = 240 × 240 mm, matrix = 72 × 72, section thickness =3 mm.28

The acquisition parameters on the high-performance Compact 3T scanner (GE Healthcare) were the following: T1-weighted MPRAGE: TR/TE/TI = 6.3/2.6/900 ms, flip angle = 8°, FOV = 260 × 260 mm, matrix = 256 × 256, section thickness = 1.2 mm; and MRE: TR/TE = 4001.3/59.3 ms, FOV = 240 × 240 mm, matrix = 80 × 80, section thickness = 3 mm.29

The acquisition parameters on the 3T Siemens scanner were the following: T1-weighted MPRAGE: TR/TE/TI = 2300/3.1/945 ms, flip angle = 9°, FOV = 240 × 256 mm, matrix = 320 × 300, section thickness = 0.8 mm; and MRE: TR/TE = 4800/54 ms, FOV = 240 × 240 mm, matrix = 80 × 80, section thickness = 3 mm.

Evaluation of Morphologic Features

A neuroradiologist classified patients with suspected NPH into 4 subgroups based on their morphologic features assessed on structural imaging. These 4 groups were the following: 1) high-convexity tight sulci (HCTS),25 2) congenital hydrocephalus (Congenital), 3) ventriculomegaly alone (Ventric), and 4) neither ventriculomegaly nor HCTS (Neither). HCTS was defined as focal narrowing or effacement of the sulci at the midline/vertex. Most of the cases of HCTS also had enlarged Sylvian fissures and ventriculomegaly, imaging features of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid hydrocephalus (DESH).30 The patients with HCTS alone and DESH were considered as 1 group because no significant differences in mechanical properties were detected. Ventriculomegaly was defined by Evans Index > 0.3,31 which measures the ratio of frontal horn width to internal skull width and the absence of HCTS. Congenital was defined as ventriculomegaly, diffusely narrowed cerebral sulci, and features of impaired aqueductal flow, including aqueductal web, aqueductal stenosis, or triventriculomegaly with a normal fourth ventricle.26 The Neither group had neither ventriculomegaly nor HCTS.

Stiffness and Damping Ratio Map Calculation

Stiffness and damping ratio maps were computed using neural network inversion as previously described.32 After mechanical property estimation, maps were warped into template space for analyses.33 These methods are further described in the Online Supplemental Data.

Mapping of Phenotypic Effects on Mechanical Properties

To identify significant differences in the mean stiffness and damping ratios between the groups, we fit a linear model at each voxel with predictors including age, sex, scanner system, and a set of categoric variables for group assignment by one-hot encoding. Difference maps and corresponding t-statistics were calculated for stiffness and the damping ratio between HCTS and the other groups. A false discovery rate (FDR) corrected Q < 0.05 as computed by the Storey method34 was considered significant.

Pattern Analysis

In this study, we used a previously described pattern analysis method.20 This method summarizes each person’s MRE result by measuring its spatial correlation with the expected mechanical pattern, which is obtained by contrasting 2 groups of interest, while controlling for effects of no interest (ie, age, sex, scanner). Flow charts explaining the procedure are shown in Fig 1. By considering only a single contrast of interest (HCTS versus controls), a 2D feature space is computed (1 pattern score for each of stiffness and damping ratio). By considering all possible contrasts that arise from subtyping the NPH participants, we computed a 20D feature space.

FIG 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1.

Pattern analysis. The pattern analysis procedure is depicted in a flow chart (A) with an example of one of the axial slices of a Ventric case. The procedure is performed for the whole 3D map of an individual. In n-m-1 maps, n represents the total number of cases, and m represents the number of cases from a group that is not included in the correction of the heldout individual map to create the required contrast. For example, in the HCTS-versus-control contrast, m is the number of cases in the control group. In the example shown, a voxelwise spatial correlation of the age, sex, scanner, and the mean corrected heldout individual map was computed in reference to the phenotypic map (HCTS + VM + ESF) of the HCTS versus control contrast. Feature spaces. The flow chart (B) displays the 2 feature spaces with their corresponding mechanical correlates of the anatomic features that would comprise the phenotypic map. In the HCTS-versus-Ventric contrast, mechanical correlates of the HCTS group excluding those common with the Ventric group comprise the phenotypic reference map (HCTS + ESF) for calculating the correlation scores, allowing more distinction in the scores between the HCTS and Ventric cases compared with the scores from the HCTS-versus-control contrast. The expanded feature space of 20D includes all the possible contrasts among the 5 groups, allowing systematic extraction of all possible combinations of the mechanical features that correlate to different anatomic features. ESF indicates enlarged Sylvian fissures; VM, ventriculomegaly.

Machine Learning Classification Model for Shunt Prediction

Support vector machine (SVM) classifiers were trained to predict a successful surgical outcome by using leave-one-out cross-validation to estimate out-of-sample accuracy. Separate SVMs were trained using either the 2D or 20D feature spaces. We compared the 2 models using the following performance metrics: the AUROC, accuracy, DOR, PPV, and NPV. We first conducted a permutation test to assess whether the AUROC of each model was significantly greater than a random classifier. We then conducted a permutation test to assess whether the performance metrics of the 20D feature space offered improvement compared with the 2D space.

RESULTS

There were 172 participants in this study, 44 controls, and 128 with suspected NPH. Of the 128 patients with suspected NPH, 91 had morphologic features of HCTS, 12 had congenital hydrocephalus, 20 had ventriculomegaly only, and 5 had neither ventriculomegaly nor HCTS.

A group-wise boxplot of the mean shear stiffness is shown in Fig 2A. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean stiffness of the whole brain between the HCTS and control groups (P < .05, t test). Axial slices of the averaged stiffness maps for each group are shown in Fig 2B. The HCTS group was characterized by stiffening at the midline vertex and softening around the periventricular region. Ventric and congenital groups showed patterns similar to those of HCTS, but the stiffening at the vertex was shifted toward the frontal region of the brain. In the Neither group, softening was evident around the periventricular region, but without stiffening at the vertex.

FIG 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2.

Group-wise boxplot overlayed on a jitter plot of mean shear stiffness of the whole brain of each participant (A) and averaged shear stiffness maps (B) of each group. The pair-wise Wilcoxon rank sum test and Welch t test results between the groups with P < .05 are indicated with an asterisk in the boxplot.

Figure 3 shows a group-wise boxplot of the mean damping ratio in panel A and damping ratio maps in panel B. The mean damping ratio showed a stepwise decrease as groups exhibited an increasing number of anatomic features. Significant differences in the t tests between the groups are labeled in the boxplot. In Fig 3B, damping ratio patterns demonstrated an overall decline in values in NPH phenotypes compared with controls, with greater differences toward the cranial direction.

FIG 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3.

Group-wise boxplot overlayed on a jitter plot of the mean damping ratio of the whole brain of each participant (A) and averaged damping ratio maps (B) of each group. The pair-wise Wilcoxon rank sum and Welch t test results with P < .05 (asterisk) and P < .005 (double asterisk) are displayed in the boxplot.

The difference maps for the stiffness between HCTS and other groups are shown in Fig 4. A gray-scale map of voxelwise differences is overlaid with a t-statistic map thresholded for statistical significance (FDR corrected with Q < 0.05). There were 93,254 voxels that were significantly different between HCTS and controls. The HCTS group had a cluster of voxels with higher stiffness at the midline vertex compared with the Ventric and Neither groups. HCTS had 6931 voxels with a significant difference in comparison with Neither and 11,364 voxels in comparison with Ventric. The HCTS and Congenital groups differed significantly in fewer voxels (735), without any discernible pattern.

FIG 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4.

Stiffness difference maps. FDR thresholded (Q < 0.05) t-statistic maps overlayed on voxelwise calculated stiffness difference maps between each group and the HCTS group. The number of voxels crossing the FDR threshold was 735 in Congenital, 11,364 in Ventric, 6931 in Neither, and 93,254 in control.

Figure 5 illustrates the difference maps for damping ratios of HCTS versus other groups. According to the thresholded t-statistic maps, damping ratio values were lower overall for the HCTS group. There were significant differences in 144,233 voxels between HCTS and control, 40,019 voxels between HCTS and Neither, 43,984 voxels between HCTS and Ventric, and none between HCTS and Congenital. A globally lower damping ratio of the HCTS group is consistent with the findings in the boxplot of Fig 3A.

FIG 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5.

Damping ratio difference maps. FDR thresholded (Q < 0.05) t-statistic maps overlayed on voxelwise calculated damping ratio difference maps between each group and the HCTS group. Congenital had no voxels crossing the FDR threshold, whereas Ventric had 43,984, Neither had 40,019, and control had 144,233.

In Fig 6, scatterplots of damping ratio and stiffness pattern scores are shown for 4 different contrasts. In the HCTS versus control contrast (Fig 6A), HCTS and control cases form distinct clusters, demonstrating the separability of these groups based on pattern scores. The remaining NPH subgroup cases were distributed among these clusters with intermediate pattern scores. In the HCTS-versus-Ventric contrast (Fig 6B), Ventric and HCTS cases were further separated than mentioned above because the reference map in this contrast excluded the feature of ventriculomegaly. Figure 6C shows the pattern scores for HCTS-versus-Neither contrast, and Fig 6D shows the pattern scores for HCTS-versus-Congenital contrast. The reference features extracted in these latter contrasts are labeled in Fig 1B. The scatterplots for the remaining 6 contrasts are included in the Online Supplemental Data.

FIG 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 6.

Scatterplots of the age, sex, and scanner effect corrected pattern scores of each case for the 4 contrasts of HCTS versus control (A), Ventric (B), Neither (C), and Congenital (D) groups. A, HCTS and control cases are separated into 2 distinct clusters corresponding to the extraction features associated with ventriculomegaly, enlarged ventricles, and tightening of sulci at the vertex of the brain. B, HCTS-versus-Ventric contrast extracted the features associated with the tightening of sulci at the vertex and enlarged Sylvian fissures, excluding the common feature of ventriculomegaly. C, HCTS-versus-Neither contrast further separated cases from the 2 groups. D, Pattern analysis could not distinguish between HCTS and Congenital cases due to similar mechanical patterns demonstrated in Figs 2–5.

Figure 7 shows the receiver operating characteristic curves with 5 performance metrics for the SVM classification models trained with the limited (2D) or expanded (20D) feature space. The AUROC was 0.66 for the 2D feature space (greater than a random classifier with P < .05, permutation test) in comparison with 0.77 using the 20D feature space (P < .01).

FIG 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 7.

SVM receiver operating characteristic curves for the 20D and the 2D feature spaces using a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure. The inset shows the results of 5 performance metrics: AUROC, accuracy, DOR, PPV, and NPV. Random classifier is indicated by the black dashed line.

The accuracy of the 20D feature space was 72% compared with 66% for the 2D feature space. The DOR was 6.50 compared with 1.06. PPV was 0.91 compared with 0.80, and NPV was 0.40 compared with 0.21. Though all metrics performed better using the 20D feature space, the difference between the AUROC and NPV was not statistically significant on the basis of a permutation test. The differences in the DOR and the PPV were statistically significant with P < .05, and the difference in accuracy approached the level of significance with P = .06.

DISCUSSION

This study reproduced the previous finding that HCTS/DESH is associated with characteristic patterns of stiffness and damping ratio alterations.20 By subclassifying the patients with NPH according to the presence or absence of specific anatomic features, we reported significant differences in brain mechanical properties associated with each phenotype. Furthermore, we showed that the pattern scores computed to summarize these findings at the individual level perform significantly better than chance at predicting the surgical outcomes. Finally, the 20D feature space improved predictions compared with the 2D feature space, indicating that a more detailed summary of the MRE result contains clinically useful information and merits further investigation.

Predicting the outcome of shunt surgery is a challenging task. Spinal tap tests are commonly used for prediction with high PPVs but low NPVs. Due to the invasive nature of surgery and the potential for complications, the ability to predict negative outcomes is critical. DESH, which is HCTS along with enlarged Sylvian fissures, is an imaging feature used in the diagnosis of NPH under the widely accepted Japanese criteria.30 DESH and HCTS have been found to predict clinical improvement after shunt placement in several studies.35⇓-37 However, studies have indicated that relying only on tight high convexity to predict shunt outcome38,39 would exclude patients with other NPH phenotypes who could also benefit from surgery, given that HCTS and DESH have even lower performance metrics than the spinal tap test.12 In this study, we present a noninvasive machine learning approach based on MRE for predicting surgical outcomes in NPH that considers the spectrum of NPH imaging phenotypes and not just DESH.

The results of this study are limited primarily by the number of cases in each NPH subgroup and the number of cases undergoing shunt placement with clinical follow-up. The sample size impacts both the pattern score estimation and the classifier training. Nonetheless, this is the largest MRE study on NPH, to our knowledge. Another limitation of this study is that some of the features in the expanded feature set are likely counterproductive to the classification model. However, we did not use any feature selection because the sample size was not sufficient to add this layer of model tuning. Thus, the presented approach should provide a conservative estimate of model performance and further improvement is expected with additional data.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the clinical importance of predicting shunt efficacy, it is also vital to establish biomarker-derived features for various morphologic phenotypes of NPH to better understand its pathophysiology. The morphologic phenotypes of NPH exhibit distinct mechanical signatures using MRE. Pattern analysis based on MRE presents a promising method for improving diagnosis and prediction of shunt outcomes. In addition, this methodology could be relevant in distinguishing NPH from other neurologic disorders that may have overlapping imaging and/or clinical presentations mimicking NPH, such as Parkinson disease, Alzheimer disease, or progressive supranuclear palsy.40 The study provides motivation for further research on the underlying mechanical biomarkers of different phenotypes of NPH, in addition to collecting more clinical follow-up after shunt surgery to improve prediction abilities.

Footnotes

  • Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text and PDF of this article at www.ajnr.org.

Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Graff-Radford J,
    2. Gunter JL,
    3. Jones DT, et al
    . Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics disorders: relationship to Alzheimer biomarkers and cognition. Neurology 2019;93:e2237–46 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000008616 pmid:31719134
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Adams RD,
    2. Fisher CM,
    3. Hakim S, et al
    . Symptomatic occult hydrocephalus with “normal” cerebrospinal-fluid pressure: a treatable syndrome. N Engl J Med 1965;273:117–26 doi:10.1056/NEJM196507152730301 pmid:14303656
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Andersson J,
    2. Rosell M,
    3. Kockum K, et al
    . Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective, population-based study. PLoS One 2019;14:e0217705 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217705 pmid:31141553
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Borzage M,
    2. Saunders A,
    3. Hughes J, et al
    . The first examination of diagnostic performance of automated measurement of the callosal angle in 1856 elderly patients and volunteers indicates that 12.4% of exams met the criteria for possible normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1942–48 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7294 pmid:34620589
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Molde K,
    2. Söderström L,
    3. Laurell K
    . Parkinsonian symptoms in normal pressure hydrocephalus: a population-based study. J Neurol 2017;264:2141–48 doi:10.1007/s00415-017-8598-5 pmid:28879446
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Wallenstein MB,
    2. McKhann GM
    . Salomón Hakim and the discovery of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2010;67:155–59; discussion 159 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000370058.12120.0e pmid:20568668
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Toma AK,
    2. Papadopoulos MC,
    3. Stapleton S, et al
    . Systematic review of the outcome of shunt surgery in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:1977–80 doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1835-5 pmid:23975646
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wu EM,
    2. El Ahmadieh TY,
    3. Kafka B, et al
    . Ventriculoperitoneal shunt outcomes of normal pressure hydrocephalus: a case series of 116 patients. Cureus 2019;11:e4170 doi:10.7759/cureus.4170 pmid:31093469
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kaye JA,
    2. Grady CL,
    3. Haxby JV, et al
    . Plasticity in the aging brain: reversibility of anatomic, metabolic, and cognitive deficits in normal-pressure hydrocephalus following shunt surgery. Arch Neurol 1990;47:1336–41 doi:10.1001/archneur.1990.00530120082014 pmid:2252451
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Goodman M,
    2. Meyer WJ
    . Dementia reversal in post-shunt normal pressure hydrocephalus predicted by neuropsychological assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:685–86 doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49138.x pmid:11380772
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Fisher CM
    . Reversal of normal pressure hydrocephalus symptoms by subdural collections. Can J Neurol Sci 2002;29:171–74 pmid:12035840
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Mihalj M,
    2. Dolić K,
    3. Kolić K, et al
    . CSF tap test: obsolete or appropriate test for predicting shunt responsiveness? A systemic review. J Neurol Sci 2016;370:157–84 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.028 pmid:26944123
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Thavarajasingam SG,
    2. El-Khatib M,
    3. Rea M, et al
    . Clinical predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2021;163:2641–72 doi:10.1007/s00701-021-04922-z pmid:34235589
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Haan J,
    2. Thomeer RT
    . Predictive value of temporary external lumbar drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 1988;22:388–91 doi:10.1227/00006123-198802000-00020 pmid:3352890
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Walchenbach R,
    2. Geiger E,
    3. Thomeer RT, et al
    . The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;72:503–06 doi:10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503 pmid:11909911
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. El Ahmadieh TY,
    2. Wu EM,
    3. Kafka B, et al
    . Lumbar drain trial outcomes of normal pressure hydrocephalus: a single-center experience of 254 patients. J Neurosurg 2019;132:306–12 doi:10.3171/2018.8.JNS181059 pmid:30611143
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Rebuck JA,
    2. Murry KR,
    3. Rhoney DH, et al
    . Infection related to intracranial pressure monitors in adults: analysis of risk factors and antibiotic prophylaxis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:381–84 doi:10.1136/jnnp.69.3.381 pmid:10945814
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Thavarajasingam SG,
    2. El-Khatib M,
    3. Vemulapalli K, et al
    . Radiological predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2023;165:369–419 doi:10.1007/s00701-022-05402-8 pmid:36435931
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Mládek A,
    2. Gerla V,
    3. Skalický P, et al
    . Prediction of shunt responsiveness in suspected patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus using the lumbar infusion test: a machine learning approach. Neurosurgery 2022;90:407–18 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001838 pmid:35080523
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Cogswell PM,
    3. Trzasko JD, et al
    . Identification of normal pressure hydrocephalus by disease-specific patterns of brain stiffness and damping ratio. Invest Radiol 2020;55:200–08 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000630 pmid:32058331
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Muthupillai R,
    2. Lomas DJ,
    3. Rossman PJ, et al
    . Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 1995;269:1854–57 doi:10.1126/science.7569924 pmid:7569924
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Streitberger KJ,
    2. Wiener E,
    3. Hoffmann J, et al
    . In vivo viscoelastic properties of the brain in normal pressure hydrocephalus. NMR Biomed 2011;24:385–92 doi:10.1002/nbm.1602 pmid:20931563
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Fattahi N,
    2. Arani A,
    3. Perry A, et al
    . MR elastography demonstrates increased brain stiffness in normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:462–67 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4560 pmid:26542235
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Perry A,
    2. Graffeo CS,
    3. Fattahi N, et al
    . Clinical correlation of abnormal findings on magnetic resonance elastography in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2017;99:695–700.e691 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.121 pmid:28063896
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kitagaki H,
    2. Mori E,
    3. Ishii K, et al
    . CSF spaces in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: morphology and volumetry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1277–84 pmid:9726467
    PubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Oi S,
    2. Shimoda M,
    3. Shibata M, et al
    . Pathophysiology of long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adults. J Neurosurg 2000;92:933–40 doi:10.3171/jns.2000.92.6.0933 pmid:10839252
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Kageyama H,
    2. Miyajima M,
    3. Ogino I, et al
    . Panventriculomegaly with a wide foramen of Magendie and large cisterna magna. J Neurosurg 2016;124:1858–66 doi:10.3171/2015.6.JNS15162 pmid:26636390
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Arani A,
    2. Murphy MC,
    3. Glaser KJ, et al
    . Measuring the effects of aging and sex on regional brain stiffness with MR elastography in healthy older adults. Neuroimage 2015;111:59–64 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.016 pmid:25698157
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Foo TKF,
    2. Laskaris E,
    3. Vermilyea M, et al
    . Lightweight, compact, and high-performance 3T MR system for imaging the brain and extremities. Magn Reson Med 2018;80:2232–45 doi:10.1002/mrm.27175 pmid:29536587
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Mori E,
    2. Ishikawa M,
    3. Kato T, et al
    ; Japanese Society of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2012;52:775–809 doi:10.2176/nmc.52.775 pmid:23183074
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Miskin N,
    2. Patel H,
    3. Franceschi AM, et al
    ; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Diagnosis of normal-pressure hydrocephalus: use of traditional measures in the era of volumetric MR imaging. Radiology 2017;285:197–205 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161216 pmid:28498794
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Scott JM,
    2. Pavuluri K,
    3. Trzasko JD, et al
    . Impact of material homogeneity assumption on cortical stiffness estimates by MR elastography. Magn Reson Med 2022;88:916–29 doi:10.1002/mrm.29226 pmid:35381121
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ashburner J,
    2. Friston KJ
    . Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005;26:839–51 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 pmid:15955494
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Storey JD
    . A direct approach to false discovery rates. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 2002;64:479–98 doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00346
    CrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    1. Narita W,
    2. Nishio Y,
    3. Baba T, et al
    . High-convexity tightness predicts the shunt response in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1831–37 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4838 pmid:27365329
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Hashimoto M,
    2. Ishikawa M,
    3. Mori E, et al
    . Diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus is supported by MRI-based scheme: a prospective cohort study. Cerebrospinal Fluid Res 2010;7:18 doi:10.1186/1743-8454-7-18 pmid:21040519
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kazui H,
    2. Miyajima M,
    3. Mori E, et al
    ; SINPHONI-2 Investigators. Lumboperitoneal shunt surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (SINPHONI-2): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:585–94 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00046-0 pmid:25934242
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Craven CL,
    2. Toma AK,
    3. Mostafa T, et al
    . The predictive value of DESH for shunt responsiveness in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 2016;34:294–98 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.09.004 pmid:27692614
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Ahmed AK,
    2. Luciano M,
    3. Moghekar A, et al
    . Does the presence or absence of DESH predict outcomes in adult hydrocephalus? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:2022–26 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5820 pmid:30361433
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Quattrone A,
    2. Sarica A,
    3. La Torre D, et al
    . Progressive supranuclear palsy with marked ventricular dilatation mimicking normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Sci 2022;43:1783–90 doi:10.1007/s10072-021-05594-4 pmid:34499242
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received July 24, 2023.
  • Accepted after revision November 21, 2023.
  • © 2024 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 45 (3)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 45, Issue 3
1 Mar 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prediction of Surgical Outcomes in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus by MR Elastography
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Pragalv Karki, Matthew C. Murphy, Petrice M. Cogswell, Matthew L. Senjem, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Benjamin D. Elder, Avital Perry, Christopher S. Graffeo, Fredric B Meyer, Clifford R. Jack, Richard L. Ehman, John Huston
Prediction of Surgical Outcomes in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus by MR Elastography
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2024, 45 (3) 328-334; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8108

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
MR Elastography & Outcomes in Hydrocephalus
Pragalv Karki, Matthew C. Murphy, Petrice M. Cogswell, Matthew L. Senjem, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Benjamin D. Elder, Avital Perry, Christopher S. Graffeo, Fredric B Meyer, Clifford R. Jack, Richard L. Ehman, John Huston
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2024, 45 (3) 328-334; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8108
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (4)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Biomechanical instability of the brain–CSF interface in hydrocephalus
    Phan Q Duy, Neel H Mehta, Kristopher T Kahle
    Brain 2024 147 10
  • The Networking Brain: How Extracellular Matrix, Cellular Networks, and Vasculature Shape the In Vivo Mechanical Properties of the Brain
    Judith Bergs, Anna S. Morr, Rafaela V. Silva, Carmen Infante‐Duarte, Ingolf Sack
    Advanced Science 2024 11 31
  • Deep Brain Stimulation Electrode Deviations are Associated With Brain Stiffness Interfaces Measured by Magnetic Resonance Elastography
    Chengyuan Wu, Mahdi Alizadeh, Mary K. Kramer, Matthew B. Kroen, Robert Ziechmann, Feroze B. Mohamed, Qianhong Wu, Curtis L. Johnson
    Operative Neurosurgery 2025
  • Essentials of Hydrocephalus
    Daniel A. Murphy, Karen L. Salzman
    Advances in Clinical Radiology 2024 6 1

More in this TOC Section

  • Automatic quantification and classification in IPD
  • Vascular risk factors, CMB and WMH in cognition
  • DTI Quantifies Shunt Surgery Outcomes in iNPH
Show more Neurodegenerative Disorder Imaging

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire