Measurement of cortical thickness using an automated 3-D algorithm: a validation study
Abstract
A validation study was conducted to assess the accuracy of the algorithm developed by MacDonald et al. (1999) for measuring cortical thickness. This algorithm automatically determines the cortical thickness by 3-D extraction of the inner and outer surfaces of the cerebral cortex from an MRI scan. A manual method of tagging the grey-csf and grey-white interface was used on 20 regions (10 cortical areas found in each hemisphere) in 40 MRIs of the brain to validate the algorithm. The regions were chosen throughout the cortex to get broad assessment of the algorithm's performance. Accuracy was determined by an anatomist tagging the csf-grey and grey-white borders of selected gyri and by allowing the algorithm to determine the csf-grey and grey-white borders and the corresponding cortical thickness of the same region. Results from the manual and automatic methods were statistically compared using overall ANOVA and paired t tests for each region. The manual and automatic methods were in agreement for all but 4 of the 20 regions tested. The four regions where there were significant differences between the two methods were the insula left and right, the right cuneus, and the right parahippocampus. We conclude that the automatic algorithm is valid for most of the cortex and provides a viable alternative to manual methods of determining cortical thickness in vivo. However, caution should be taken when measuring the regions mentioned previously where the results of the algorithm can be biased by surrounding grey structures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The CLASP cortical thickness algorithm has been validated using manual measurements and simulation approaches.
“Validation of the CLASP cortical thickness algorithm has been done using both manual measurements (Kabani et al. 2001) and simulation approaches (Lerch and Evans 2005;Lee et al. 2006).”
From Developmental Changes in Organization of Structural Brain Networks (2013) · cites this paper as Kabani et al. 2001
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 250
- Authors
- Kabani, N., Le Goualher, G., MacDonald, D., & Evans, A. C.
- Affiliations
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kabani, Noor
- ORCID
- Evans, Alan C.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 375-380
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967337284
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- cortical thickness, algorithm validation, insula, cuneus, parahippocampal gyrus, brain MRI
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Algorithms, Automation, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
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