BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic assessment of brain volumes is needed in research and clinical practice. Manual tracing is still the criterion standard but is time-consuming. It is important to validate the automatic tools to avoid the problems of clinical studies drawing conclusions on the basis of brain volumes estimated with methodologic errors. The objective of this study was to evaluate a new commercially available fully automatic software for MR imaging of brain volume assessment. Automatic and expert manual brain volumes were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging (3T, axial T2 and FLAIR) was performed in 41 healthy elderly volunteers (mean age, 70 ± 6 years) and 20 patients with hydrocephalus (mean age, 73 ± 7 years). The software Q(Brain) was used to manually and automatically measure the following brain volumes: ICV, BTV, VV, and WMHV. The manual method has been previously validated and was used as the reference. Agreement between the manual and automatic methods was evaluated by using linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the automatic and manual methods regarding all volumes. The mean differences were ICV = 49 ± 93 mL (mean ± 2SD, n = 61), BTV = 11 ± 70 mL, VV = -6 ± 10 mL, and WMHV = 2.4 ± 9 mL. The automatic calculations of brain volumes took approximately 2 minutes per investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic tool is promising and provides rapid assessment of brain volumes. However, the software needs improvement before it is incorporated into research or daily use. Manual segmentation remains the reference method.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic assessment of brain volumes is needed in research and clinical practice. Manual tracing is still the criterion standard but is time-consuming. It is important to validate the automatic tools to avoid the problems of clinical studies drawing conclusions on the basis of brain volumes estimated with methodologic errors. The objective of this study was to evaluate a new commercially available fully automatic software for MR imaging of brain volume assessment. Automatic and expert manual brain volumes were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging (3T, axial T2 and FLAIR) was performed in 41 healthy elderly volunteers (mean age, 70 ± 6 years) and 20 patients with hydrocephalus (mean age, 73 ± 7 years). The software Q(Brain) was used to manually and automatically measure the following brain volumes: ICV, BTV, VV, and WMHV. The manual method has been previously validated and was used as the reference. Agreement between the manual and automatic methods was evaluated by using linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the automatic and manual methods regarding all volumes. The mean differences were ICV = 49 ± 93 mL (mean ± 2SD, n = 61), BTV = 11 ± 70 mL, VV = -6 ± 10 mL, and WMHV = 2.4 ± 9 mL. The automatic calculations of brain volumes took approximately 2 minutes per investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic tool is promising and provides rapid assessment of brain volumes. However, the software needs improvement before it is incorporated into research or daily use. Manual segmentation remains the reference method.
Authors: Khalid Ambarki; Hanna Israelsson; Anders Wåhlin; Richard Birgander; Anders Eklund; Jan Malm Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: M I Kohn; N K Tanna; G T Herman; S M Resnick; P D Mozley; R E Gur; A Alavi; R A Zimmerman; R C Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: F Admiraal-Behloul; D M J van den Heuvel; H Olofsen; M J P van Osch; J van der Grond; M A van Buchem; J H C Reiber Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-08-29 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: W J P Henneman; J D Sluimer; J Barnes; W M van der Flier; I C Sluimer; N C Fox; P Scheltens; H Vrenken; F Barkhof Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bas Jasperse; Paola Valsasina; Veronica Neacsu; Dirk L Knol; Nicola De Stefano; Christian Enzinger; Stephen M Smith; Stefan Ropele; Tijmen Korteweg; Antonio Giorgio; Valerie Anderson; Chris H Polman; Massimo Filippi; David H Miller; Marco Rovaris; Frederik Barkhof; Hugo Vrenken Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Ahmed A Bahrani; Omar M Al-Janabi; Erin L Abner; Shoshana H Bardach; Richard J Kryscio; Donna M Wilcock; Charles D Smith; Gregory A Jicha Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Hollie West; James L Leach; Blaise V Jones; Marguerite Care; Rupa Radhakrishnan; Arnold C Merrow; Enrique Alvarado; Suraj D Serai Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: M Vågberg; T Lindqvist; K Ambarki; J B M Warntjes; P Sundström; R Birgander; A Svenningsson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kacie L Wright; Ramona O Hopkins; Frank E Robertson; Erin D Bigler; H Gerry Taylor; Kenneth H Rubin; Kathryn Vannatta; Terry Stancin; Keith Owen Yeates Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: T Granberg; M Uppman; F Hashim; C Cananau; L E Nordin; S Shams; J Berglund; Y Forslin; P Aspelin; S Fredrikson; M Kristoffersen-Wiberg Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825