Cited by 540Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Imaging and Analysis

A comparison of automated segmentation and manual tracing for quantifying hippocampal and amygdala volumes

Open access
Morey, Rajendra A., Petty, Christopher M., Xu, Yuan, Pannu Hayes, Jasmeet, Wagner, H. Ryan, Lewis, Darrell V., LaBar, Kevin S., Styner, Martin +1 more·2009·NeuroImage

Abstract

Large databases of high-resolution structural MR images are being assembled to quantitatively examine the relationships between brain anatomy, disease progression, treatment regimens, and genetic influences upon brain structure. Quantifying brain structures in such large databases cannot be practically accomplished by expert neuroanatomists using hand-tracing. Rather, this research will depend upon automated methods that reliably and accurately segment and quantify dozens of brain regions. At present, there is little guidance available to help clinical research groups in choosing such tools. Thus, our goal was to compare the performance of two popular and fully automated tools, FSL/FIRST and FreeSurfer, to expert hand tracing in the measurement of the hippocampus and amygdala. Volumes derived from each automated measurement were compared to hand tracing for percent volume overlap, percent volume difference, across-sample correlation, and 3-D group-level shape analysis. In addition, sample size estimates for conducting between-group studies were computed for a range of effect sizes. Compared to hand tracing, hippocampal measurements with FreeSurfer exhibited greater volume overlap, smaller volume difference, and higher correlation than FIRST, and sample size estimates with FreeSurfer were closer to hand tracing. Amygdala measurement with FreeSurfer was also more highly correlated to hand tracing than FIRST, but exhibited a greater volume difference than FIRST. Both techniques had comparable volume overlap and similar sample size estimates. Compared to hand tracing, a 3-D shape analysis of the hippocampus showed FreeSurfer was more accurate than FIRST, particularly in the head and tail. However, FIRST more accurately represented the amygdala shape than FreeSurfer, which inflated its anterior and posterior surfaces.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.033

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • FreeSurfer is one of the most reliable automated brain segmentation methods for the amygdala, and its measures correlate highly with expert hand tracings.

    “Overall, FreeSurfer provides one of the most reliable automated brain segmentation methods for assessing the amygdala and these measures correlate highly with expert hand tracings (90).”
  • Volumetric changes of the hippocampus that occur with age, with various neuropsychiatric disorders, and also in response to stress are quite heterogeneous.

    “While some of the reasons for this may be methodological such as MR image acquisition parameters, post acquisition processing and the method used for volumetric assessment (Geuze et al., 2005; Morey et al., 2009), it is clear that volumetric changes of the hippocampus that occur with age, with various neuropsychiatric disorders, and also in response to stress are quite heterogeneous.”

    From Widespread reductions in gray matter volume in depression (2013) · cites this paper as Morey et al., 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JB Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition With Psychotic Screen (SCID-I/P W/ PSY SCREEN) Biometrics Research 2002 New York New York State Psychiatric Institute

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morey, R. A., Petty, C. M., Xu, Y., Pannu Hayes, J., Wagner, H. R., Lewis, D. V., LaBar, K. S., Styner, M., & McCarthy, G.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Morey, Rajendra A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
855-866
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129574992
Cited by
540
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 27
FWCI
26.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ns043209-09, MH60451)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH073091, P50MH60451, P50MH060451)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 43209, R01-NS043209, 43209, R37NS043209, MH60451)
  • NIH Clinical Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
hippocampus, amygdala, brain segmentation, automatic segmentation, manual tracing, FreeSurfer, hippocampal volume, amygdala volume, sample size determination, structural MRI
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Automation, Hippocampus, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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