ArticlePloS one2020
A novel technique for olfactory bulb measurements.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-field MRI correlates with immunohistochemical analysis of the normal and Alzheimer's disease anterior olfactory nucleus.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Olfactory Bulb Volume and Function Recovery in Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Observational
- Sex differences modulate olfactory bulb volume-function relationships but not olfactory training-induced plasticity.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- The impact of highly effective modulator therapy on sinusitis and dysosmia in young children with cystic fibrosis: a prospective study protocol.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- DTI of the Olfactory Bulb in COVID-19-Related Anosmia: A Pilot Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Automatic Segmentation of the Olfactory Bulb.Brain sciences · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo introduce new ways to calculate OB volumes, checking their validity and comparing them to already established technique i.e. OB volumetric based on manual segmentation of OB boundaries.
methodsTwo approaches were used to calculate OB volumes (1) Manual Segmentation using planimetric manual contouring; (2) Box-frame method, calculating the parameters based on a box placed around the OB.
resultsWe calculated OB volumes using both techniques and found comparable outcomes. High inter-observer reliability was found for volumes calculated by both observers. For manual segmentation, Cronbach's alpha (α) was 0.91 and 0.93 for right and left OB volume, respectively, whereas for the box-frame method α was 0.94 and 0.90 for right and left OB, respectively.
conclusionsThe simple box-frame method of OB volume calculation appears reliable. Its results are comparable to an established technique.
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.