Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30402744›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2019

T1-MPRAGE and T2-FLAIR segmentation of cortical and subcortical brain regions-an MRI evaluation study.

Ebba Beller, Daniel Keeser, Antonia Wehn, Berend Malchow, Temmuz Karali, Andrea Schmitt, Irina Papazova, Boris Papazov, Franziska Schoeppe, Giovanna Negrao de Figueiredo and 2 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ebba BellerDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany. Ebba.Beller@med.uni-rostock.de.
Daniel KeeserDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Antonia WehnDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Berend MalchowDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Temmuz KaraliDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andrea SchmittDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Irina PapazovaDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Boris PapazovDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Franziska SchoeppeDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Giovanna Negrao de FigueiredoDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Birgit Ertl-WagnerDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sophia StoeckleinDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DELMU Klinikum · DESickKids Foundation · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDevelopment of a warp-based automated brain segmentation approach of 3D fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) images and comparison to 3D T1-based segmentation.

methods3D FLAIR and 3D T1-weighted sequences of 30 healthy subjects (mean age 29.9 ± 8.3 years, 8 female) were acquired on the same 3T MR scanner. Warp-based segmentation was applied for volumetry of total gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and 116 atlas regions. Segmentation results of both sequences were compared using Pearson correlation (r).

resultsCorrelation of GM segmentation results based on FLAIR and T1 was overall good for cortical structures (mean r across all cortical structures = 0.76). Comparatively weaker results were found in the occipital lobe (r = 0.77), central region (mean r = 0.58), basal ganglia (mean r = 0.59), thalamus (r = 0.30), and cerebellum (r = 0.73). FLAIR segmentation underestimated volume of the central region compared to T1, but showed a better anatomic concordance with the occipital lobe on visual review and subcortical structures, when also compared to manual segmentation. Visual analysis of FLAIR-based WM segmentation revealed frequent misclassification of regions of high signal intensity as GM.

conclusionWarp-based FLAIR segmentation yields comparable results to T1 segmentation for most cortical GM structures and may provide anatomically more congruent segmentation of subcortical GM structures. Selected cortical regions, especially the central region and total WM, seem to be underestimated on FLAIR segmentation.

Indexed as

AdultBrain MappingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedBrainCohort studiesMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroanatomy

Identifiers

PMID30402744
OpenAlexW2900361555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.