ArticleClinical neuroradiology2025
Volumetry of Selected Brain Regions-Can We Compare MRI Examinations of Different Manufacturers and Field Strengths?
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and Calibration Between FreeSurfer and Visually Quality-Controlled FSL/FAST-ALVIN Lateral Ventricle Volumetry in a Population-Based MRI Cohort.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based MRI Segmentation in Glioblastoma and Single Brain Metastasis: An Exploratory Study of Diagnostic and Prognostic Value.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI improves consistency in regional brain volumes measured in ultra-low-field MRI and 3T MRI.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMagnetic Resonance Imaging based brain segmentation and volumetry has become an important tool in clinical routine and research. However the impact of the used hardware is only barely investigated. This study aims to assess the influence of scanner manufacturer, field strength and head-coil on volumetry results.
methods10 healthy subjects (27.4 ± 1.71 years) were prospectively examined in a Philips Achieva 1.5T, Philips Ingenia CX 3T, Siemens MAGNETOM Aera 1.5T and Siemens MAGNETOM Vida 3T, the latter equipped with three different head coils, within one day. Brain volumetry of the whole brain, total white and grey matter, the cortical grey matter of the supratentorial lobes as well as regions important for the differentiation of neurodegenerative diseases of the dementia and movement disorder spectrum and the ventricular system was performed using the CE-certified software mdbrain by mediaire (Berlin, Germany). Both raw volumetry results and percentile allocation provided by the software were analysed.
resultsThis study reveals significantly different volumetry results for all examined brain regions beside the ventricular system between the different MRI devices but comparable results between the different head coils. When examining the percentile allocation provided by used software, the Intraclass-Correlation-Coefficient (ICC) values were even lower than the raw volume ICC values ranging from poor to excellent correlation.
conclusionThe present study reveals highly relevant results that need to be considered both in clinical routine when analysing follow-up examinations from different scanner types and clinical research, especially when planning longitudinal and/or multicentre studies.
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.