Trial reportBrain and behavior2014
Estimating intracranial volume using intracranial area in healthy children and those with childhood status epilepticus.
Trial report in Brain and behavior, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Seat of the soul"? The structure and function of the pineal gland in women with alleged spirit possession-Results of two experimental studies.Brain and behavior · 2020Article
- Delineation of two intracranial areas and the perpendicular intracranial width is sufficient for intracranial volume estimation.Insights into imaging · 2018Article
- Estimating Intracranial Volume in Brain Research: An Evaluation of Methods.Neuroinformatics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCorrecting volumetric measurements of brain structures for intracranial volume (ICV) is important in comparing volumes across subjects with different ICV. The aim of this study was to investigate whether intracranial area (ICA) reliably predicts actual ICV in a healthy pediatric cohort and in children with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE).
methodsT1-weighted volumetric MRI was performed on 20 healthy children (control group), 10 with CSE with structurally normal MRI (CSE/MR-), and 12 with CSE with structurally abnormal MRI (CSE/MR+). ICA, using a mid-sagittal slice, and the actual ICV were measured.
resultsA high Spearman correlation was found between the ICA and ICV measurements in the control (r = 0.96; P < 0.0001), CSE/MR- (r = 0.93; P = 0.0003), and CSE/MR+ (r = 0.94; P < 0.0001) groups. On comparison of predicted and actual ICV, there was no significant difference in the CSE/MR- group (P = 0.77). However, the comparison between predicted and actual ICV was significantly different in the CSE/MR+ (P = 0.001) group. Our Bland-Altman plot showed that the ICA method consistently overestimated ICV in children in the CSE/MR+ group, especially in those with small ICV or widespread structural abnormalities.
conclusionsAfter further validation, ICA measurement may be a reliable alternative to measuring actual ICV when correcting volume measurements for ICV, even in children with localized MRI abnormalities. Caution should be applied when the method is used in children with small ICV and those with multilobar brain pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.