4.7 Article

Reliability and validity of MRI-based automated volumetry software relative to auto-assisted manual measurement of subcortical structures in HIV-infected patients from a multisite study

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 1334-1344

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.033

关键词

-

资金

  1. [R01 NS036524]
  2. [K23 MH073416]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The automated volumetric output of FreeSurfer and Individual Brain Atlases using Statistical Parametric Mapping (IBASPM), two widely used and well published software packages, was examined for accuracy and consistency relative to auto-assisted manual (AAM) tracings (i.e., manual correction of automated output) when measuring the caudate, putamen, amygdala, and hippocampus in the baseline scans of 120 HIV-infected patients (86.7% male. 47.3 +/- 6.3 y.o., mean HIV duration 12.0 +/- 6.3 years) from the NIH-funded HIV Neuroimaging Consortium (HIVNC) cohort. The data was examined for accuracy and consistency relative to auto-assisted manual tracing, and construct validity was assessed by correlating automated and AAM volumetric measures with relevant clinical measures of HIV progression. When results were averaged across all patients in the eight structures examined, FreeSurfer achieved lower absolute volume difference in five, higher sensitivity in seven, and higher spatial overlap in all eight structures. Additionally, FreeSurfer results exhibited less variability in all measures. Output from both methods identified discrepant correlations with clinical measures of HIV progression relative to AAM segmented data. Overall, FreeSurfer proved more effective in the context of subcortical volumetry in HIV-patients, particularly in a multisite cohort study such as this. These findings emphasize that regardless of the automated method used, visual inspection of segmentation output, along with manual correction if necessary, remains critical to ensuring the validity of reported results. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据