ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2019
Segmentation errors and intertest reliability in automated and manually traced hippocampal volumes.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical and clinical validation of commercial automated volumetric MRI tools for dementia diagnosis-a systematic review.Neuroradiology · 2021Pooled it
- Volume-based bias in automated measurements of lateral ventricle and hippocampal volumes of mild traumatic brain injury patients.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Brain Parcellation Repeatability and Reproducibility Using Conventional and Quantitative 3D MR Imaging.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2023Article
- Cortical Grey matter volume depletion links to neurological sequelae in post COVID-19 "long haulers".BMC neurology · 2023Article
- Article
- Executive function deficits and medial temporal lobe atrophy in late-life depression and Alzheimer's disease: a comparative study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Updated Review of the Evidence Supporting the Medical and Legal Use of NeuroQuantFrontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Review
- Validity and reliability of the medial temporal lobe atrophy scale in a memory clinic population.BMC neurology · 2021Article
- Hippocampal Sclerosis Detection with NeuroQuant Compared with Neuroradiologists.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo rigorously compare automated atlas-based and manual tracing hippocampal segmentation for accuracy, repeatability, and clinical acceptability given a relevant range of imaging abnormalities in clinical epilepsy.
methodsForty-nine patients with hippocampal asymmetry were identified from our institutional radiology database, including two patients with significant anatomic deformations. Manual hippocampal tracing was performed by experienced technologists on 3T MPRAGE images, measuring hippocampal volume up to the tectal plate, excluding the hippocampal tail. The same images were processed using NeuroQuant and FreeSurfer software. Ten subjects underwent repeated manual hippocampal tracings by two additional technologists blinded to previous results to evaluate consistency. Ten patients with two clinical MRI studies had volume measurements repeated using NeuroQuant and FreeSurfer.
resultsFreeSurfer raw volumes were significantly lower than NeuroQuant (P < 0.001, right and left), and hippocampal asymmetry estimates were lower for both automatic methods than manual tracing (P < 0.0001). Differences remained significant after scaling volumes to age, gender, and scanner matched normative percentiles. Volume reproducibility was fair (0.4-0.59) for manual tracing, and excellent (>0.75) for both automated methods. Asymmetry index reproducibility was excellent (>0.75) for manual tracing and FreeSurfer segmentation and fair (0.4-0.59) for NeuroQuant segmentation. Both automatic segmentation methods failed on the two cases with anatomic deformations. Segmentation errors were visually identified in 25 NeuroQuant and 27 FreeSurfer segmentations, and nine (18%) NeuroQuant and six (12%) FreeSurfer errors were judged clinically significant.
interpretationAutomated hippocampal volumes are more reproducible than hand-traced hippocampal volumes. However, these methods fail in some cases, and significant segmentation errors can occur.
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.