ArticleBrain and behavior2023
Reliability of automated brain volumetric analysis: A test by comparing NeuroQuant and volBrain software.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Expert Panel Consensus Guidelines of the German Society of Neuroradiology on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Multiple Sclerosis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Guideline
- Recovery of Brain Atrophy Following Vitamin C Supplementation in Scurvy - Correspondence.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Volume-based bias in automated measurements of lateral ventricle and hippocampal volumes of mild traumatic brain injury patients.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Four Commercially Available Artificial Intelligence Software for Brain Volumetry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hippocampal volume from T1 MRI as an atrophy biomarker: automated calculation and Scheltens' scale correlation.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Redefining Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Using AI-Driven Brain Volumetry.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Investigation of the effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy on brain volume in cancer patients: brain tumor study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Brain Volume Correlations and Machine Learning Classification in Epilepsy Diagnosis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Subcortical volume alteration and correlation with social function under chlorpromazine versus clozapine treatment in schizophrenia.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Different Neuroimaging Measurement Techniques for the Cerebellum in Alzheimer's Disease: VolBrain-Horos Comparison.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Radiological Reporting of Brain Atrophy in MRI: Real-Life Comparison Between Narrative Reports, Semiquantitative Scales and Automated Software-Based Volumetry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quantitative brain volumetry in neurological disorders: from disease mechanisms to software solutions.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Reliability of automated brain volumetric analysis: A test by comparing NeuroQuant and volBrain software.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Automated hippocampal volume measurement: agreement analysis between HIPS and volBrain software.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
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
background and purposeBrain volume analysis from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is gaining an important role in neurological diagnosis. This study compares the volumes of brain segments measured by two automated brain analysis software, NeuroQuant (NQ), and volBrain (VB) in order to test their reliability in brain volumetry.
methodsUsing NQ and VB software, the same brain segment volumes were calculated and compared, taken from 56 patients scanned under the same MRI sequence. These segments were intracranial cavity, putamen, thalamus, amygdala, whole brain, cerebellum, white matter, and hippocampus. The paired t-test method has been used to determine if there was a significant difference in these measurements. The interclass correlation (ICC) is used to test inter-method reliability between the two software. Finally, regression analysis was used to examine the possibility of linear correlation.
resultsIn all brain segments tested but hippocampus, significant differences were found. ICC presents satisfactory to excellent reliability in all brain segments except thalamus and amygdala for which reliability has been proven to be poor. In most cases, linear correlation was found.
conclusionsThe significant differences found in the majority of the tested brain segments are raising questions about the reliability of automated brain analysis as a quantitative tool. Strong linear correlation of the volumetric measurements and good reliability indicates that, each software provides good qualitative information of brain structures size.
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.