Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/143729
Title: Qualitative and quantitative comparison of hippocampal volumetric software applications: do all roads lead to rome?
Author: Mangesius, Stephanie
Haider, Lukas
Lenhart, Lukas
Steiger, Ruth
Prados Carrasco, Ferran
Scherfler, Christoph
Gizewski, Elke R.
Others: Medical University of Innsbruck
University College London Institute of Neurology
Medical University of Vienna
University College London
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging
brain
software
hippocampus
atrophy
Issue Date: 12-Feb-2022
Publisher: Biomedicines
Citation: Mangesius, S., Haider, L., Lenhart, L., Steiger, R., Prados, F., Scherfler, C. & Gizewski, E.R. (2022). Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison of Hippocampal Volumetric Software Applications: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?. Biomedicines, 10(2), 1-15. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10020432
Published in: 10;2
Also see: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10020432
Abstract: Brain volumetric software is increasingly suggested for clinical routine. The present study quantifies the agreement across different software applications. Ten cases with and ten gender- and age-adjusted healthy controls without hippocampal atrophy (median age: 70; 25-75% range: 64-77 years and 74; 66-78 years) were retrospectively selected from a previously published cohort of Alzheimer's dementia patients and normal ageing controls. Hippocampal volumes were computed based on 3 Tesla T1-MPRAGE-sequences with FreeSurfer (FS), Statistical-Parametric-Mapping (SPM; Neuromorphometrics and Hammers atlases), Geodesic-Information-Flows (GIF), Similarity-and-Truth-Estimation-for-Propagated-Segmentations (STEPS), and Quantib. MTA (medial temporal lobe atrophy) scores were manually rated. Volumetric measures of each individual were compared against the mean of all applications with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Comparing against the mean of all methods, moderate to low agreement was present considering categorization of hippocampal volumes into quartiles. ICCs ranged noticeably between applications (left hippocampus (LH): from 0.42 (STEPS) to 0.88 (FS); right hippocampus (RH): from 0.36 (Quantib) to 0.86 (FS). Mean differences between individual methods and the mean of all methods [mm3] were considerable (LH: FS -209, SPM-Neuromorphometrics -820; SPM-Hammers -1474; Quantib -680; GIF 891; STEPS 2218; RH: FS -232, SPM-Neuromorphometrics -745; SPM-Hammers -1547; Quantib -723; GIF 982; STEPS 2188). In this clinically relevant sample size with large spread in data ranging from normal aging to severe atrophy, hippocampal volumes derived by well-accepted applications were quantitatively different. Thus, interchangeable use is not recommended.
Language: English
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/143729
ISSN: 2227-9059MIAR
Appears in Collections:Articles cientÍfics
Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
biomedicines-10-00432-v2.pdf1,14 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open