Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26539075›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2015

A comparison of FreeSurfer-generated data with and without manual intervention.

Christopher S McCarthy, Avinash Ramprashad, Carlie Thompson, Jo-Anna Botti, Ioana L Coman, Wendy R Kates

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Longitudinal trajectories of brain development from infancy to school age and their relationship with literacy development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Subcortical volumes and cognition in CADASIL - A pilot study.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher S McCarthyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Neuroimaging, State University of New York at Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY, USA.
Avinash RamprashadDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Neuroimaging, State University of New York at Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY, USA.
Carlie ThompsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Neuroimaging, State University of New York at Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY, USA.
Jo-Anna BottiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Neuroimaging, State University of New York at Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY, USA.
Ioana L ComanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Neuroimaging, State University of New York at Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY, USA.
Wendy R KatesDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Neuroimaging, State University of New York at Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY, USA.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · US

Funding

Biomarkers for Psychosis in Velocardiofacial SyndromeR01MH064824 · NIMH · UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY · PI KATES, WENDY · 2002 to 2015
$7.3M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH064824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper examined whether FreeSurfer-generated data differed between a fully-automated, unedited pipeline and an edited pipeline that included the application of control points to correct errors in white matter segmentation. In a sample of 30 individuals, we compared the summary statistics of surface area, white matter volumes, and cortical thickness derived from edited and unedited datasets for the 34 regions of interest (ROIs) that FreeSurfer (FS) generates. To determine whether applying control points would alter the detection of significant differences between patient and typical groups, effect sizes between edited and unedited conditions in individuals with the genetic disorder, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) were compared to neurotypical controls. Analyses were conducted with data that were generated from both a 1.5 tesla and a 3 tesla scanner. For 1.5 tesla data, mean area, volume, and thickness measures did not differ significantly between edited and unedited regions, with the exception of rostral anterior cingulate thickness, lateral orbitofrontal white matter, superior parietal white matter, and precentral gyral thickness. Results were similar for surface area and white matter volumes generated from the 3 tesla scanner. For cortical thickness measures however, seven edited ROI measures, primarily in frontal and temporal regions, differed significantly from their unedited counterparts, and three additional ROI measures approached significance. Mean effect sizes for edited ROIs did not differ from most unedited ROIs for either 1.5 or 3 tesla data. Taken together, these results suggest that although the application of control points may increase the validity of intensity normalization and, ultimately, segmentation, it may not affect the final, extracted metrics that FS generates. Potential exceptions to and limitations of these conclusions are discussed.

Indexed as

control pointsFreeSurferintensity normalizationinteractivesemi-automaticwhite matter edits

Identifiers

PMID26539075
PMCPMC4612506
OpenAlexW2196212278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.