Cited by 122Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesRetinal Imaging and Analysis

Hippocampal volume change measurement: quantitative assessment of the reproducibility of expert manual outlining and the automated methods FreeSurfer and FIRST

Mulder, Emma R., de Jong, Remko A., Knol, Dirk L., van Schijndel, Ronald A., Cover, Keith S., Visser, Pieter J., Barkhof, Frederik, Vrenken, Hugo·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Background To measure hippocampal volume change in Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), expert manual delineation is often used because of its supposed accuracy. It has been suggested that expert outlining yields poorer reproducibility as compared to automated methods, but this has not been investigated. Aim To determine the reproducibilities of expert manual outlining and two common automated methods for measuring hippocampal atrophy rates in healthy aging, MCI and AD. Methods From the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), 80 subjects were selected: 20 patients with AD, 40 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 20 healthy controls (HCs). Left and right hippocampal volume change between baseline and month-12 visit was assessed by using expert manual delineation, and by the automated software packages FreeSurfer (longitudinal processing stream) and FIRST. To assess reproducibility of the measured hippocampal volume change, both back-to-back (BTB) MPRAGE scans available for each visit were analyzed. Hippocampal volume change was expressed in μL, and as a percentage of baseline volume. Reproducibility of the 1-year hippocampal volume change was estimated from the BTB measurements by using linear mixed model to calculate the limits of agreement (LoA) of each method, reflecting its measurement uncertainty. Using the delta method, approximate p-values were calculated for the pairwise comparisons between methods. Statistical analyses…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.058

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mulder, E. R., de Jong, R. A., Knol, D. L., van Schijndel, R. A., Cover, K. S., Visser, P. J., Barkhof, F., & Vrenken, H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Gemeente Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Vrenken, Hugo
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
92
Pages
169-181
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981789870
Cited by
122
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2
FWCI
12.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Seventh Framework Programme (283562)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
hippocampal atrophy, reproducibility, FreeSurfer, FIRST, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, healthy aging, limits of agreement, longitudinal MRI, MPRAGE, segmentation errors, measurement uncertainty, ADNI cohort
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Artificial Intelligence, Atrophy, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Organ Size, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Software Validation, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Cognitive Dysfunction

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