ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
Association between automated brain volumetry and visual classification of hippocampal atrophy in MRI.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Visual assessment of medial temporal atrophy (MTA) is widely used in Alzheimer's disease (AD) imaging evaluation. However, its subjective nature may contribute to interobserver variability and inconsistencies in hippocampal atrophy classification. Quantitative MRI-based approaches, particularly automated hippocampal volumetry, provide objective measurements that can be statistically adjusted for demographic and anatomical factors. Yet the anatomical and clinical characteristics of individuals showing disagreement between visual MTA assessment and automated volumetric measurements remain poorly characterized. To investigate the relationship between visual MTA ratings and automated hippocampal volumetry, while evaluating interobserver agreement and characterizing discrepant cases between qualitative and quantitative assessments. Methods: We analyzed 677 T1-weighted MRI scans from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Hippocampal volumes were obtained using automated segmentation (FreeSurfer), and MTA scores were independently assigned by two experienced neuroradiologists. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Associations between hippocampal volumetry and MTA scores were evaluated using correlation and regression analyses adjusted for demographic and intracranial volume variables. Cases with hippocampal volumes beyond ±2 standard deviations from the mean expected for each MTA category were classified as mismatch. Results: Interobserver agreement was substantial for both hemispheres (κ = 0.652 left; κ = 0.611 right). Hippocampal volumetry demonstrated a significant inverse correlation with MTA scores (ρ ≈ -0.67). Approximately 10% of individuals (62 of 677) presented discrepant volumetric findings relative to visual classification, predominantly in lower and intermediate MTA categories. Discussion: Visual MTA assessment demonstrated relevant variability, particularly in subtle atrophy patterns. Hippocampal volumetry provided complementary quantitative information and may improve objectivity in clinically challenging cases without replacing expert visual interpretation.
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.