The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scan–rescan reliability of subcortical brain volumes derived from automated segmentation
Open accessAbstract
Large‐scale longitudinal studies of regional brain volume require reliable quantification using automated segmentation and labeling. However, repeated MR scanning of the same subject, even if using the same scanner and acquisition parameters, does not result in identical images due to small changes in image orientation, changes in prescan parameters, and magnetic field instability. These differences may lead to appreciable changes in estimates of volume for different structures. This study examined scan–rescan reliability of automated segmentation algorithms for measuring several subcortical regions, using both within‐day and across‐day comparison sessions in a group of 23 normal participants. We found that the reliability of volume measures including percent volume difference, percent volume overlap (Dice's coefficient), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), varied substantially across brain regions. Low reliability was observed in some structures such as the amygdala (ICC = 0.6), with higher reliability (ICC = 0.9) for other structures such as the thalamus and caudate. Patterns of reliability across regions were similar for automated segmentation with FSL/FIRST and FreeSurfer (longitudinal stream). Reliability was associated with the volume of the structure, the ratio of volume to surface area for the structure, the magnitude of the interscan interval, and the method of segmentation. Sample size estimates for detecting changes in brain volume for a range of likely effect sizes also differed by region. Thus, longitudinal research requires a careful analysis of sample size and choice of segmentation method combined with a consideration of the brain structure(s) of interest and the magnitude of the anticipated effects. Hum Brain Mapp, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fischl, B., Salat, D. H., Busa, E., Albert, M., Dieterich, M., Haselgrove, C., van der Kouwe, A., Killiany, R., Kennedy, D., Klaveness, S., et al. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00569-x · Cited by 8,610
Castellanos, F. X. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1740 · Cited by 1,646
Longitudinal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies of Older Adults: A Shrinking Brain
Resnick, S. M., Pham, D. L., Kraut, M. A., Zonderman, A. B., & Davatzikos, C. (2003) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-08-03295.2003 · Cited by 1,425
Pruessner, J. C. (2000) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/10.4.433 · Cited by 706
JATZKO, A., ROTHENHOFER, S., SCHMITT, A., GASER, C., DEMIRAKCA, T., WEBERFAHR, W., WESSA, M., MAGNOTTA, V, & BRAUS, D. (2006) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2006.03.010 · Cited by 116
Mathalon, D. H., Sullivan, E. V., Lim, K. O., & Pfefferbaum, A. (2001) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.2.148
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 10.1007/PL00007542 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.309.6960.996 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.012 · DOI
- 10.1016/0730-725X(93)90218-3 · DOI
- 10.1006/nimg.2001.0744 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1212/01.WNL.0000154530.72969.11 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/jmri.20583 · DOI · Paper page
- Hintze JL, 2005, PASS 2005 User's Guide
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.09.046 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TITB.2008.917893 · DOI
- 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0033291799001567 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.033 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2006.00069.x · DOI
- PatenaudeB(2007):Bayesian Statistical Models of Shape and Appearance for Subcortical Brain Segmentation D. Phil. Thesis Oxford UK: Oxford University.
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.063 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/hbm.20511 · DOI
- 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.11.2038 · DOI
- 10.1002/hbm.20040 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.031 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159/000087343 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.037 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal image analysis
Reuter, M., Schmansky, N. J., Rosas, H. D., & Fischl, B. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.084 · Cited by 2,356
A Bayesian model of shape and appearance for subcortical brain segmentation
Patenaude, B., Smith, S. M., Kennedy, D. N., & Jenkinson, M. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.046 · Cited by 2,287
Cole, J. H., Poudel, R. P. K., Tsagkrasoulis, D., Caan, M. W. A., Steves, C., Spector, T. D., & Montana, G. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.059 · Cited by 872
“The test-retest reliability of T1-MRI derived brain structural measures has been demonstrated (Morey et al., 2010; Nugent et al., 2013), and our results are consistent with these estimates.”
ResultCommon genetic variants influence human subcortical brain structures
Initiative, T. A. D. N., Hibar, D. P., The CHARGE Consortium, EPIGEN, IMAGEN, SYS, Stein, J. L., Renteria, M. E., Arias-Vasquez, A., Desrivières, S., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14101 · Cited by 858
Holmes, A. J., Hollinshead, M. O., O’Keefe, T. M., Petrov, V. I., Fariello, G. R., Wald, L. L., Fischl, B., Rosen, B. R., Mair, R. W., Roffman, J. L., et al. (2015) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.31 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Morey, R. A., Selgrade, E. S., Wagner, H. R., Huettel, S. A., Wang, L., & McCarthy, G.
- Venue
- Human Brain Mapping
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-16
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1751-1762
- ISSN
- 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0193
- OpenAlex
- W2142903958
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scan–rescan reliability of subcortical brain volumes derived from automated segmentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hbm.20973
- The paper
- Morey, R. A., Selgrade, E. S., Wagner, H. R., Huettel, S. A., Wang, L., & McCarthy, G. (2010). Scan–rescan reliability of subcortical brain volumes derived from automated segmentation. Human Brain Mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20973
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.