4.5 Article

MR Imaging of Brain Volumes: Evaluation of a Fully Automatic Software

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 408-412

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2275

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic assessment of brain volumes is needed in research and clinical practice. Manual tracing is still the criterion standard but is time-consuming. It is important to validate the automatic tools to avoid the problems of clinical studies drawing conclusions on the basis of brain volumes estimated with methodologic errors. The objective of this study was to evaluate a new commercially available fully automatic software for MR imaging of brain volume assessment. Automatic and expert manual brain volumes were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging (3T, axial 12 and FLAIR) was performed in 41 healthy elderly volunteers (mean age, 70 +/- 6 years) and 20 patients with hydrocephalus (mean age, 73 +/- 7 years). The software Brain Q was used to manually and automatically measure the following brain volumes: ICV, BTV, W, and WMHV. The manual method has been previously validated and was used as the reference. Agreement between the manual and automatic methods was evaluated by using linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the automatic and manual methods regarding all volumes. The mean differences were ICV = 49 +/- 93 mL (mean +/- 2SD, n = 611, BTV = 11 +/- 70 mL, VV = -6 +/- 10 mL, and WMHV = 2.4 +/- 9 mL. The automatic calculations of brain volumes took approximately 2 minutes per investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic tool is promising and provides rapid assessment of brain volumes. However, the software needs improvement before it is incorporated into research or daily use. Manual segmentation remains the reference method.

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

4.5
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