BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether mid-sagittal intracranial area (ICA) is a valid surrogate of intracranial volume (ICV) when using retrospective data with relatively thick (6-7 mm) sagittal slices. METHODS: Data were retrospectively analyzed from 47 subjects who had two MRI scans taken at least nine months apart. Twenty-three subjects had manual segmentation of ICV on the T2-weighted sequence for comparison. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for intraobserver, interobserver, and intraobserver scan-rescan comparisons were 0.96, 0.97 and 0.95. Pearson correlation coefficients between ICV and ICA, averaging the cumulative 1, 2, 3, and 4 most midline slices, were 0.89, 0.94, 0.93, and 0.95. There was a significant marginal increase in explained variance of ICV by measuring two, rather than one, slices (P= 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ICA, even measured without high-resolution imaging, is a reasonable substitute for ICV.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether mid-sagittal intracranial area (ICA) is a valid surrogate of intracranial volume (ICV) when using retrospective data with relatively thick (6-7 mm) sagittal slices. METHODS: Data were retrospectively analyzed from 47 subjects who had two MRI scans taken at least nine months apart. Twenty-three subjects had manual segmentation of ICV on the T2-weighted sequence for comparison. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for intraobserver, interobserver, and intraobserver scan-rescan comparisons were 0.96, 0.97 and 0.95. Pearson correlation coefficients between ICV and ICA, averaging the cumulative 1, 2, 3, and 4 most midline slices, were 0.89, 0.94, 0.93, and 0.95. There was a significant marginal increase in explained variance of ICV by measuring two, rather than one, slices (P= 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ICA, even measured without high-resolution imaging, is a reasonable substitute for ICV.
Authors: Natalia S Rost; Lisa Cloonan; Allison S Kanakis; Kaitlin M Fitzpatrick; Danielle R Azzariti; Virginia Clarke; Charles M Lourenco; Dominique P Germain; Juan M Politei; György A Homola; Claudia Sommer; Nurcan Üçeyler; Katherine B Sims Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Eric E Smith; Kaveer R N Nandigam; Yu-Wei Chen; Jed Jeng; David Salat; Amy Halpin; Matthew Frosch; Lauren Wendell; Louis Fazen; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Christopher D Anderson; Alessandro Biffi; Rosanna Rahman; Owen A Ross; Jeremiasz M Jagiella; Brett Kissela; John W Cole; Lynelle Cortellini; Natalia S Rost; Yu-Ching Cheng; Steven M Greenberg; Paul I W de Bakker; Robert D Brown; Thomas G Brott; Braxton D Mitchell; Joseph P Broderick; Bradford B Worrall; Karen L Furie; Steven J Kittner; Daniel Woo; Agnieszka Slowik; James F Meschia; Richa Saxena; Jonathan Rosand Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Hasan H Karadeli; Dan-Victor Giurgiutiu; Lisa Cloonan; Kaitlin Fitzpatrick; Allison Kanakis; Muhammed E Ozcan; Lee H Schwamm; Natalia S Rost Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: E M Arsava; R Rahman; J Rosand; J Lu; E E Smith; N S Rost; A B Singhal; M H Lev; K L Furie; W J Koroshetz; A G Sorensen; H Ay Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Timo Kurki; Leena Himanen; Elina Vuorinen; Anna Myllyniemi; Anna-Riitta Saarenketo; Tommi Kauko; Nina Brandstack; Olli Tenovuo Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 2.804