ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
Volume-based bias in automated measurements of lateral ventricle and hippocampal volumes of mild traumatic brain injury patients.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lateral ventricle and hippocampal volume are clinical indicators for many disorders. Manual tracing is time-consuming; the alternative, automated tracing, may be inconsistent across software programs. The purpose was to estimate the reliability of three automated measuring programs relative to manual tracing, and to consider the use of linear inter-conversion factors. Participants with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) were measured for lateral ventricle volume (LVV; n = 20; 35% male; mean age = 36.5) or hippocampal volume (HV; n = 50; 42% male; mean age = 39.1). Axial 4 mm T2 images and 1.2 mm coronal T1 Images were used for manual lateral ventricle tracings and hippocampal tracings, respectively (InteleViewer®). 3T MR images 1.2 mm sagittal T1 sequences were used for automated volumetric tracings in NeuroQuant® v3.0, FreeSurfer® v6, and volBrain software. Reliability was estimated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and relationships between software programs were described using regression equations. Human inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.99) for LVV and moderate (0.67) for HV. For LVV, software programs had excellent consistency with manual tracing and with each other (≥0.97). There was excellent agreement between manual tracing and NeuroQuant® (0.97), but moderate-good agreement (0.54-0.87) with FreeSurfer® or VolBrain, with notably size-biased underestimation of LVV. For HV, FreeSurfer® and VolBrain had excellent consistency with manual tracing (≥0.90); NeuroQuant® had moderate-good consistency with other methods (0.57-0.79). FreeSurfer® had excellent agreement with manual tracing (0.91), but poor-good agreement with other software (0.42-0.78). Compared to manual tracing, FreeSurfer® overestimated large HV, and volBrain underestimated small HV. Conversions involving HV may be ill-advised given their low consistency. Algorithms for brain volumetrics must be evaluated for distorting effects of size-associated bias.
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.