BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Total intracranial volume (TIV) as a measure of premorbid brain size is often used to correct volumes of interest for interindividual differences in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. We directly compared the reliability of different TIV estimation methods to address whether such methods are influenced by brain atrophy in the neurodegenerative disease, semantic dementia. METHODS: We contrasted several manual approaches using T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and proton density (PD) acquisitions with 2 automated methods (statistical parametric mapping 5 [SPM5] and FreeSurfer [FS]) in a cohort of semantic dementia subjects (n= 11) that had been imaged longitudinally. RESULTS: Novel mid-cranial sampling of either PD or T2-weighted images were least susceptible to atrophy: of these, the PD method was both more precise and more user-friendly. SPM5 also produced good results, providing automation for only a small loss in precision compared to the best manual methods. The T1 method that underestimated TIV as atrophy progressed was the least reproducible and the most labor-intensive. Fully automated FS overestimated TIV with progressive atrophy, and the results were even worse after optimizing the transformation. CONCLUSION: The mid-cranial sampling of PD images achieved the best combination of precision, reliability, and user-friendliness. SPM5 is an attractive alternative if the highest level of precision is not required.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Total intracranial volume (TIV) as a measure of premorbid brain size is often used to correct volumes of interest for interindividual differences in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. We directly compared the reliability of different TIV estimation methods to address whether such methods are influenced by brain atrophy in the neurodegenerative disease, semantic dementia. METHODS: We contrasted several manual approaches using T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and proton density (PD) acquisitions with 2 automated methods (statistical parametric mapping 5 [SPM5] and FreeSurfer [FS]) in a cohort of semantic dementia subjects (n= 11) that had been imaged longitudinally. RESULTS: Novel mid-cranial sampling of either PD or T2-weighted images were least susceptible to atrophy: of these, the PD method was both more precise and more user-friendly. SPM5 also produced good results, providing automation for only a small loss in precision compared to the best manual methods. The T1 method that underestimated TIV as atrophy progressed was the least reproducible and the most labor-intensive. Fully automated FS overestimated TIV with progressive atrophy, and the results were even worse after optimizing the transformation. CONCLUSION: The mid-cranial sampling of PD images achieved the best combination of precision, reliability, and user-friendliness. SPM5 is an attractive alternative if the highest level of precision is not required.
Authors: Fábio S Ferreira; João M S Pereira; Aldina Reis; Mafalda Sanches; João V Duarte; Leonor Gomes; Carolina Moreno; Miguel Castelo-Branco Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: K Ambarki; T Lindqvist; A Wåhlin; E Petterson; M J B Warntjes; R Birgander; J Malm; A Eklund Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Tilak Ratnanather; Clare B Poynton; Dominic V Pisano; Britni Crocker; Elizabeth Postell; Shannon Cebron; Elvan Ceyhan; Nancy A Honeycutt; Pamela B Mahon; Patrick E Barta Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ihssan A Abdul-Kareem; Andrej Stancak; Laura M Parkes; May Al-Ameen; Jamaan Alghamdi; Faten M Aldhafeeri; Karl Embleton; David Morris; Vanessa Sluming Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Madhav Thambisetty; Yang An; Anna Kinsey; Deepthi Koka; Muzamil Saleem; Andreas Güntert; Michael Kraut; Luigi Ferrucci; Christos Davatzikos; Simon Lovestone; Susan M Resnick Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jorge Jovicich; Silvester Czanner; Xiao Han; David Salat; Andre van der Kouwe; Brian Quinn; Jenni Pacheco; Marilyn Albert; Ronald Killiany; Deborah Blacker; Paul Maguire; Diana Rosas; Nikos Makris; Randy Gollub; Anders Dale; Bradford C Dickerson; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Carlos Platero; María Eugenia López; María Del Carmen Tobar; Miguel Yus; Fernando Maestu Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Shiva Keihaninejad; Rolf A Heckemann; Gianlorenzo Fagiolo; Mark R Symms; Joseph V Hajnal; Alexander Hammers Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.556