41 Using a new technique of ASL | Trigonocephaly Figure 4. Estimated probability (and corresponding 95% CI) of obtaining a certain rating for each type of registration (for patients). Table 3. Estimated probability to get a particular rating for each type of registration (and corresponding 95% CI). rating regT1 regASLrigid regASLaffine regASLdct 1 0.05 [0.02, 0.12] 0.14 [0.05, 0.28] 0.02 [0.01, 0.05] 0.00 [0.00, 0.01] 2 0.43 [0.24, 0.61] 0.59 [0.44, 0.72] 0.25 [0.12, 0.42] 0.05 [0.02, 0.12] 3 0.48 [0.29, 0.66] 0.26 [0.12, 0.44] 0.64 [0.49, 0.76] 0.56 [0.38, 0.72] 4 0.04 [0.01, 0.09] 0.01 [0.00, 0.03] 0.09 [0.03, 0.19] 0.38 [0.19, 0.60] CBF Comparison of Normalization Strategies The results of the mixed linear model demonstrate that there was no evidence of a difference in the mean CBF of the frontal lobe between trigonocephaly patients and controls (Table 4). Moreover, the mean CBF evaluated in the frontal lobe was significantly higher for direct ASL registration to the MNI space via a pseudoCBF for all three types of registration (regASLrigid, regASLaffine, regASLdct) compared with regT1. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw