ArticlePloS one2018
Fast CSF MRI for brain segmentation; Cross-validation by comparison with 3D T1-based brain segmentation methods.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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.
- Assessment of the Impact of Turbo Factor on Image Quality and Tissue Volumetrics in Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Three-Dimensional T1-Weighted (3D T1W) Sequence.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2023Article
- Arterial COEuropean radiology experimental · 2020Article
- An Improved Full Convolutional Network Combined with Conditional Random Fields for Brain MR Image Segmentation Algorithm and its 3D Visualization Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn previous work we have developed a fast sequence that focusses on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) based on the long T2 of CSF. By processing the data obtained with this CSF MRI sequence, brain parenchymal volume (BPV) and intracranial volume (ICV) can be automatically obtained. The aim of this study was to assess the precision of the BPV and ICV measurements of the CSF MRI sequence and to validate the CSF MRI sequence by comparison with 3D T1-based brain segmentation methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen healthy volunteers (2 females; median age 28 years) were scanned (3T MRI) twice with repositioning in between. The scan protocol consisted of a low resolution (LR) CSF sequence (0:57min), a high resolution (HR) CSF sequence (3:21min) and a 3D T1-weighted sequence (6:47min). Data of the HR 3D-T1-weighted images were downsampled to obtain LR T1-weighted images (reconstructed imaging time: 1:59 min). Data of the CSF MRI sequences was automatically segmented using in-house software. The 3D T1-weighted images were segmented using FSL (5.0), SPM12 and FreeSurfer (5.3.0).
resultsThe mean absolute differences for BPV and ICV between the first and second scan for CSF LR (BPV/ICV: 12±9/7±4cc) and CSF HR (5±5/4±2cc) were comparable to FSL HR (9±11/19±23cc), FSL LR (7±4, 6±5cc), FreeSurfer HR (5±3/14±8cc), FreeSurfer LR (9±8, 12±10cc), and SPM HR (5±3/4±7cc), and SPM LR (5±4, 5±3cc). The correlation between the measured volumes of the CSF sequences and that measured by FSL, FreeSurfer and SPM HR and LR was very good (all Pearson's correlation coefficients >0.83, R2 .67-.97). The results from the downsampled data and the high-resolution data were similar.
conclusionBoth CSF MRI sequences have a precision comparable to, and a very good correlation with established 3D T1-based automated segmentations methods for the segmentation of BPV and ICV. However, the short imaging time of the fast CSF MRI sequence is superior to the 3D T1 sequence on which segmentation with established methods is performed.
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.