ArticleRadiological physics and technology2020
Effect of changing the analyzed image contrast on the accuracy of intracranial volume extraction using Brain Extraction Tool 2.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of skull stripping in a single-contrast convolutional neural network model using eight-contrast magnetic resonance images.Radiological physics and technology · 2023Article
- Advantages of Using Both Voxel- and Surface-based Morphometry in Cortical Morphology Analysis: A Review of Various Applications.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of changing the contrast of an analyzed image on the accuracy of intracranial volume (ICV) extraction using the Brain Extraction Tool (BET2) in healthy adults and patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS), including infants. Twelve SWS patients, including infants, and 12 healthy participants were imaged on a 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine. All individuals underwent quantification of relaxation times and proton density using multi-echo acquisition of saturation recovery with turbo-spin-echo readout (QRAPMASTER). Based on the QRAPMASTER data, we created images with seven contrasts (T1-WI, T2-WI, PD-WI, T2 short-tau inversion recovery [STIR], proton density [PD] STIR, T2STIR + PDSTIR, and T1-WI + T2-WI + PD-WI) by post-processing with SyMRI software. ICVs extracted with BET2 from the FMRIB (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain) Software Library with each of the seven image contrasts were compared with manually extracted ICVs, which is the gold standard reviewed by a board-certificated neuroradiologist. Manual extraction was performed on T1-WI and T2STIR. Statistical analyses were performed with Jaccard similarity coefficients (J). The highest J score was found in T1-WI + T2-WI + PD-WI in all participants (0.8451); T1-WI in healthy participants (0.8984); T2STIR in participants with SWS (0.8325). Our findings suggest that T1-WI and T2STIR should be used in ICV extraction performed using BET2 on healthy participants and infants, respectively. Additionally, if the analyzed individuals include both healthy participants and infants, T1-WI + T2-WI + PD-WI should be used.
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.