ArticleScientific reports2024
External evaluation of a deep learning-based approach for automated brain volumetry in patients with huntington's disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simple diameters, accurate stages:a practical approach to HD-ISS staging.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret quality control of 3D gradient echo T1-weighted MR acquisition sequences for improved test-retest stability of MRI-based hippocampus volumetry.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
- Review
- Brain and Ventricle Volume Alterations in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Determined by Artificial Intelligence-Based MRI Volumetry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A crucial step in the clinical adaptation of an AI-based tool is an external, independent validation. The aim of this study was to investigate brain atrophy in patients with confirmed, progressed Huntington's disease using a certified software for automated volumetry and to compare the results with the manual measurement methods used in clinical practice as well as volume calculations of the caudate nuclei based on manual segmentations. Twenty-two patients were included retrospectively, consisting of eleven patients with Huntington's disease and caudate nucleus atrophy and an age- and sex-matched control group. To quantify caudate head atrophy, the frontal horn width to intercaudate distance ratio and the intercaudate distance to inner table width ratio were obtained. The software mdbrain was used for automated volumetry. Manually measured ratios and automatically measured volumes of the groups were compared using two-sample t-tests. Pearson correlation analyses were performed. The relative difference between automatically and manually determined volumes of the caudate nuclei was calculated. Both ratios were significantly different between the groups. The automatically and manually determined volumes of the caudate nuclei showed a high level of agreement with a mean relative discrepancy of - 2.3 ± 5.5%. The Huntington's disease group showed significantly lower volumes in a variety of supratentorial brain structures. The highest degree of atrophy was shown for the caudate nucleus, putamen, and pallidum (all p < .0001). The caudate nucleus volume and the ratios were found to be strongly correlated in both groups. In conclusion, in patients with progressed Huntington's disease, it was shown that the automatically determined caudate nucleus volume correlates strongly with measured ratios commonly used in clinical practice. Both methods allowed clear differentiation between groups in this collective. The software additionally allows radiologists to more objectively assess the involvement of a variety of brain structures that are less accessible to standard semiquantitative methods.
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.