Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799402›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2022

Subcortical and hippocampal brain segmentation in 5-year-old children: Validation of FSL-FIRST and FreeSurfer against manual segmentation.

Kristian Lidauer, Elmo P Pulli, Anni Copeland, Eero Silver, Venla Kumpulainen, Niloofar Hashempour, Harri Merisaari, Jani Saunavaara, Riitta Parkkola, Tuire Lähdesmäki and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A deep learning framework for comprehensive segmentation of deep grey nuclei.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Automatic brain structure segmentation forQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kristian LidauerFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1389-2637
Elmo P PulliFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3871-8563
Anni CopelandFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6482-9008
Eero SilverFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9522-7720
Venla KumpulainenFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Niloofar HashempourFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Harri MerisaariFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8515-5399
Jani SaunavaaraDepartment of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Riitta ParkkolaDepartment of Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tuire LähdesmäkiDepartment of Paediatric Neurology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Ekaterina SaukkoDepartment of Radiology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Saara NolviFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Eeva-Leena KatajaFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Linnea KarlssonFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Hasse KarlssonFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Jetro J TuulariFinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Turku Brain and Mind Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
University of Turku · FITurku University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developing accurate subcortical volumetric quantification tools is crucial for neurodevelopmental studies, as they could reduce the need for challenging and time-consuming manual segmentation. In this study, the accuracy of two automated segmentation tools, FSL-FIRST (with three different boundary correction settings) and FreeSurfer, were compared against manual segmentation of the hippocampus and subcortical nuclei, including the amygdala, thalamus, putamen, globus pallidus, caudate and nucleus accumbens, using volumetric and correlation analyses in 80 5-year-olds. Both FSL-FIRST and FreeSurfer overestimated the volume on all structures except the caudate, and the accuracy varied depending on the structure. Small structures such as the amygdala and nucleus accumbens, which are visually difficult to distinguish, produced significant overestimations and weaker correlations with all automated methods. Larger and more readily distinguishable structures such as the caudate and putamen produced notably lower overestimations and stronger correlations. Overall, the segmentations performed by FSL-FIRST's default pipeline were the most accurate, whereas FreeSurfer's results were weaker across the structures. In line with prior studies, the accuracy of automated segmentation tools was imperfect with respect to manually defined structures. However, apart from amygdala and nucleus accumbens, FSL-FIRST's agreement could be considered satisfactory (Pearson correlation > 0.74, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.68 and Dice score coefficient (DSC) > 0.87) with highest values for the striatal structures (putamen, globus pallidus, caudate) (Pearson correlation > 0.77, ICC > 0.87 and DSC > 0.88, respectively). Overall, automated segmentation tools do not always provide satisfactory results, and careful visual inspection of the automated segmentations is strongly advised.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrainChild, PreschoolHippocampusHumansPutamenThalamusbrainbrain (growth and development)childneuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID35799402
PMCPMC9543285
OpenAlexW4284892930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.