ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2019
An evaluation of automated tracing for orbitofrontal cortex sulcogyral pattern typing.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cortical Sulcal Abnormalities Revealed by Sulcal Morphometry in Patients with Chronic and Episodic Migraine.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Patterns and predictors of orbitofrontal sulcogyral morphology in a nonclinical population.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Towards Deciphering the Fetal Foundation of Normal Cognition and Cognitive Symptoms From Sulcation of the Cortex.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2021Article
- Orbitofrontal Sulcogyral Pattern as a Transdiagnostic Trait Marker of Early Neurodevelopment in the Social Brain.Clinical EEG and neuroscience · 2020Review
- "Plis de passage" Deserve a Role in Models of the Cortical Folding Process.Brain topography · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCharacterization of stereotyped orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) sulcogyral patterns formed by the medial and lateral orbitofrontal sulci (MOS and LOS) can be used to characterize individual variability; however, in practice, issues exist for reliability and reproducibility of anatomical classifications, as current methods rely on manual tracing. NEW
methodWe assessed whether an automated tracing procedure would be useful for characterizing OFC sulcogyral patterns. 100 subjects from a published collection of manual OFC tracings and characterizations of patients with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and typical controls were used to evaluate an automated tracing procedure implemented using the BrainVISA Morphologist Pipeline.
resultsAutomated tracings of caudal and rostral segments of the medial (MOSc/MOSr) and lateral (LOSc/LOSr) orbitofrontal sulci, as well as the intermediate (IOS) and transverse orbitofrontal sulci (TOS) were found to accurately identify OFC sulci, accurately portray sulci continuity, and reliably inform manual sulcogyral pattern characterization. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodAutomated tracings produced visibly similar tracings of OFC sulci and removed subjective influence from locating sulci. The semi-automated pipeline of automated tracing and manual sulcogyral pattern characterization can eliminate the need for direct input during the most time-consuming process of the manual pipeline.
conclusionsThe results suggest that automated OFC sulci tracing methods using BrainVISA Morphologist are feasible and useful in a semi-automated pipeline to characterize OFC sulcogyral patterns. Automated OFC sulci tracing methods will improve reliability and reproducibility of sulcogyral characterizations and can allow for characterizations of sulcal patterns types in larger sample sizes, previously unattainable using traditional manual tracing procedures.
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.