Mid-term Review Report of project

QLG3-2000-30161

MAPAWAMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giulio Sandini

April 4, 2002

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

1. Overall objectives of the Project *

2. Progress to date *

3. Research Approach *

4. Contribution of the project Partners *

5. Project Management *

6. Exploitation and Dissemination *

7. Ethical and Safety Aspects *

8. Overall Assessment *

  2. Overall objectives of the Project

Is the project well-focused on meeting its objectives as set out in the contract?
Are these objectives (a) still relevant and (b) still achievable within the time and resources available to the project?

The main objective of the projects, as stated in the TA was: "..perfect the monkey fMRI technique already in place in order to compare different types of fMRI analysis with an existing metabolic mapping standard in the monkey and to compare directly cortical networks in humans and non human primates."

The objectives, which are still very relevant, were pursued along 4 lines:

  1. To improve fMRI brain imaging techniques;

  2. To compare fMRI and 2DG data to obtain baseline information on position and function of cortical areas in monkeys;

  3. To compare humans and monkey brain imaging data;

  4. To map visual and attention related cortical areas.

The progress so far is very good and certainly the initial objectives are still achievable within the time available to the project.

 

  1. Progress to date

    2. Has the project as a whole been making satisfactory progress, notably in relation and milestones set out in the contract?
    Is each of the work packages also making satisfactory progress?

    The progress to date is, in my view, very satisfactory in the line of the overall goals. After the project started there has been a major change in WP1 (and partially WP2) because of a new contrast agent has been used (MION) to perform fMRI on monkeys. The change represents a big step forward for the technique and for the project. As a consequence there has been some changes in workpackage 1, 2 and, to a smaller extend, 3. All changes are justified and some work has been done ahead of time.

    The major advance still needed (but there is no delay so far) is the possibility of comparing fMRI and 2DG data on the same monkey. Preliminary results showing the comparison of fMRI and 2DG data on different monkeys has been presented showing that the experimental protocols and the analysis methods are ready. Considering that the 2DG experiment cannot be repeated on the same monkey, the experiment has to be planned with great care to obtain the most informative and unequivocal data.

  2. Research Approach

    3. Is the project following the research approach set out in the contract?
    Is this approach still appropriate to achieve the project’s objectives?

    The research approach has remained the same in spite of the change in the methods used for the acquisition of fMRI data in monkeys. In my view the project has now the chance of obtaining more interesting results than originally planned. Considering that the project is in a unique position to obtain many important results it was suggested that more attention is placed on the quantitative comparison of the results of the different algorithms.

  3. Contribution of the project Partners

    4. Are all the partners making their foreseen contribution to the project?
    Is there evidence of meaningful cooperation between all the partners?

    The contribution of all partners is very much in line with the original plans. The cooperation is also proceeding very well through the exchange of experimental data to be used to test different techniques of activity localization, increase of resolution, registration and warping of images.

  4. Project Management

    5. Is the project well managed and well coordinated, from the scientific, organizational and financial point of views?
    Does the project coordinator have the necessary resources to do his/her work effectively?
    Is full advantage being taken of up-to-date communication systems?

    I think the project coordinator is investing all the necessary effort to actively coordinate the project. The coordination of the project is very good as everybody is sharing the same scientific objectives contributing according to its specific know-how.

  5. Exploitation and Dissemination

    6. Does the project have clear and appropriate strategies for exploitation and dissemination?
    Are these strategies being effectively implemented?
    Where relevant, are potential users and other stakeholders in the research being suitably involved in the project?

    The project has very good publications in well know journals and conferences.

  6. Ethical and Safety Aspects

    7. Is the project fulfilling its contractual commitments, if any, concerning ethics and safety?
    Are there potential causes for concern?

    The project is well managed from the ethical and safety viewpoint. No causes of concern are foreseen.

  7. Overall Assessment

Do you consider that the project will contribute usefully to the objectives of the QoL Programme?
Would you recommend that the project should continue (a) unchanged, (b) with the following modifications?

The importance of the project is, from my point of view, twofold. On one side it is attempting to increase the relevance of fMRI data by investigating in monkeys the correlation between high resolution functional data obtained with an invasive autoradiographic technique (2DG) with lower resolution but less (or non) invasive techniques (fMRI). This will advance the overall knowledge about the location and interconnection of brain functional areas beyond the single area limit. On the other side the data obtained from monkeys will offer a very advanced and precise baseline for the interpretation of fMRI data in humans.

To achieve this the project is advancing along three lines:

  1. Improvement of fMRI and 2DG methods

  2. Improvement of imaging/reconstruction of biological images

  3. Investigation of meaningful biological data (specifically vision and attention).

The composition of the consortium is perfect for the goal (an in some sense unique).

The work carried out in all workpackages is satisfactory and in some cases the deliverables were given before the deadlines.

In conclusion I think the project should continue unchanged with just the recommendation to quantify better the results of the new algorithms under investigation. During the review I had the impression that most of the algorithms proposed can be very valuable but in some cases the evaluation of the results was based more on qualitative than quantitative information. Considering the composition of the consortium I think more quantitative comparisons are certainly possible, based on pre-defined evaluation procedures. What I mean is that the consortium has full control of all phases of the experiments and data acquisition and, therefore, is in the position to design evaluation procedures to quantify, for example if:

  1. Algorithms to increase 2D and 3D resolution actually produce more precise localization and/or more accurate shape information;

  2. warping, motion correction, re-slicing techniques actually reduce distortions and provide more accurate information for matching data obtained by the different techniques;

  3. intensity and contrast compensation in 2DG allows a more accurate localization/measure of, for example, cortical layering

Apart from this recommendation I found the scientific results presented extremely interesting and I think the potentialities of the project are excellent. The coordinator pointed out that the effort devoted is more than what originally planned. My impression is that this is indeed the case. The extra effort being justified by the new contrasting technique and the intention of the group to exploit its potentialities before the technique itself becomes more widespread.