Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28546533›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Comparison of accuracy between FSL's FIRST and Freesurfer for caudate nucleus and putamen segmentation.

Gabor Perlaki, Reka Horvath, Szilvia Anett Nagy, Peter Bogner, Tamas Doczi, Jozsef Janszky, Gergely Orsi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A deep learning framework for comprehensive segmentation of deep grey nuclei.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Gabor PerlakiMTA-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, Pecs, 7623, Hungary.
Reka HorvathDepartment of Neurology, University of Pecs, Medical School, Pecs, 7623, Hungary.
Szilvia Anett NagyPecs Diagnostic Centre, Pecs, 7623, Hungary.
Peter BognerDepartment of Radiology, University of Pecs, Medical School, Pecs, 7624, Hungary.
Tamas DocziMTA-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, Pecs, 7623, Hungary.
Jozsef JanszkyMTA-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, Pecs, 7623, Hungary.
Gergely OrsiMTA-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, Pecs, 7623, Hungary. gergo.orsi@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although several methods have been developed to automatically delineate subcortical gray matter structures from MR images, the accuracy of these algorithms has not been comprehensively examined. Most of earlier studies focused primarily on the hippocampus. Here, we assessed the accuracy of two widely used non-commercial programs (FSL-FIRST and Freesurfer) for segmenting the caudate and putamen. T1-weighted 1 mm

Indexed as

AdultCaudate NucleusFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleObserver VariationPutamenReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28546533
PMCPMC5445091

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.