The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: Reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths
Open accessAbstract
Automated MRI-derived measurements of in-vivo human brain volumes provide novel insights into normal and abnormal neuroanatomy, but little is known about measurement reliability. Here we assess the impact of image acquisition variables (scan session, MRI sequence, scanner upgrade, vendor and field strengths), Freesurfer segmentation preprocessing variables (image averaging, B1 field inhomogeneity correction) and segmentation analysis variables (probabilistic atlas) on resultant image segmentation volumes from older (n=15, mean age 69.5) and younger (both n=5, mean ages 34 and 36.5) healthy subjects. The variability between hippocampal, thalamic, caudate, putamen, lateral ventricular and total intracranial volume measures across sessions on the same scanner on different days is less than 4.3% for the older group and less than 2.3% for the younger group. Within-scanner measurements are remarkably reliable across scan sessions, being minimally affected by averaging of multiple acquisitions, B1 correction, acquisition sequence (MPRAGE vs. multi-echo-FLASH), major scanner upgrades (Sonata-Avanto, Trio-TrioTIM), and segmentation atlas (MPRAGE or multi-echo-FLASH). Volume measurements across platforms (Siemens Sonata vs. GE Signa) and field strengths (1.5T vs. 3T) result in a volume difference bias but with a comparable variance as that measured within-scanner, implying that multi-site studies may not necessarily require a much larger sample to detect a specific effect. These results suggest that volumes derived from automated segmentation of T1-weighted structural images are reliable measures within the same scanner platform, even after upgrades; however, combining data across platform and across field-strength introduces a bias that should be considered in the design of multi-site studies, such as clinical drug trials. The results derived from the young groups (scanner upgrade effects and B1 inhomogeneity correction effects) should be considered as preliminary and in need for further validation with a larger dataset.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Voxel-Based Morphometry—The Methods
Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (2000) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0582 · Cited by 8,676
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
Self-citationStatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
The Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods
Jack, C. R., Bernstein, M. A., Fox, N. C., Thompson, P., Alexander, G., Harvey, D., Borowski, B., Britson, P. J., L. Whitwell, J., Ward, C., et al. (2008) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.21049 · Cited by 4,347
A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia
Shenton, M. E., Dickey, C. C., Frumin, M., & McCarley, R. W. (2001) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/s0920-9964(01)00163-3 · Cited by 2,346
Han, X., Jovicich, J., Salat, D., van der Kouwe, A., Quinn, B., Czanner, S., Busa, E., Pacheco, J., Albert, M., Killiany, R., et al. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.051 · Cited by 1,508
Self-citationBrain atrophy rates predict subsequent clinical conversion in normal elderly and amnestic MCI
Jack, C. R., Shiung, M. M., Weigand, S. D., O’Brien, P. C., Gunter, J. L., Boeve, B. F., Knopman, D. S., Smith, G. E., Ivnik, R. J., Tangalos, E. G., et al. (2005) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000180958.22678.91 · Cited by 492
Atlas Renormalization for Improved Brain MR Image Segmentation Across Scanner Platforms
Han, X., & Fischl, B. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2007.893282 · Cited by 215 · cited 3×
“This suggests that the segmentation algorithm is robust across a variety of similar image contrast properties, thus alleviating the need to create manually labeled probabilistic atlases for different acquisitionmethods, consistent with recent work (Han and Fischl, 2007).”
InfluentialSelf-citationHaemodialysis and cerebral oedema
Walters, R. J. L., Fox, N. C., Crum, W. R., Taube, D., & Thomas, D. J. (2001) · Nephron · doi:10.1159/000045903 · Cited by 87
Cited by
The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behaviour and cognition
Kanai, R., & Rees, G. (2011) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3000 · Cited by 1,055
Consistent neuroanatomical age-related volume differences across multiple samples
Walhovd, K. B., Westlye, L. T., Amlien, I., Espeseth, T., Reinvang, I., Raz, N., Agartz, I., Salat, D. H., Greve, D. N., Fischl, B., et al. (2011) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.05.013 · Cited by 506
Self-citationØstby, Y., Tamnes, C. K., Fjell, A. M., Westlye, L. T., Due-Tønnessen, P., & Walhovd, K. B. (2009) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1242-09.2009 · Cited by 480
Morris, J. C., Roe, C. M., Grant, E. A., Head, D., Storandt, M., Goate, A. M., Fagan, A. M., Holtzman, D. M., & Mintun, M. A. (2009) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.269 · Cited by 476
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
- Jovicich, J., Czanner, S., Han, X., Salat, D., van der Kouwe, A., Quinn, B., Pacheco, J., Albert, M., Killiany, R., & Blacker, D.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05-15
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 177-192
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2157885417
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 27.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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: MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: Reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.010
- The paper
- Jovicich, J., Czanner, S., Han, X., Salat, D., van der Kouwe, A., Quinn, B., Pacheco, J., Albert, M., Killiany, R., & Blacker, D. (2009). MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: Reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.010
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.
