Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
A large-scale comparison of cortical thickness and volume methods for measuring Alzheimer's disease severity
Schwarz CG, Gunter JL, Wiste HJ, Przybelski SA, Weigand SD, Ward CP, Senjem ML, Vemuri P et al.. NeuroImage. Clinical, 2016-05-30
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Alzheimer's disease (AD) researchers commonly use MRI as a quantitative measure of disease severity. Historically, hippocampal volume has been favored. Recently, "AD signature" measurements of gray matter (GM) volumes or cortical thicknesses have gained attention. Here, we systematically evaluate multiple thickness- and volume-based candidate-methods side-by-side, built using the popular FreeSurfer, SPM, and ANTs packages, according to the following criteria: (a) ability to separate clinically normal individuals from those with AD; (b) (extent of) correlation with head size, a nuisance covariatel (c) reliability on repeated scans; and (d) correlation with Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage in a group with autopsy. We show that volume- and thickness-based measures generally perform similarly for separating clinically normal from AD populations, and in correlation with Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage at autopsy. Volume-based measures are generally more reliable than thickness measures. As expected, volume measures are highly correlated with head size, while thickness measures are generally not. Because approaches to statistically correcting volumes for head size vary and may be inadequate to deal with this underlying confound, and because our goal is to determine a measure which can be used to examine age and sex effects in a cohort across a large age range, we thus recommend thickness-based measures. Ultimately, based on these criteria and additional practical considerations of run-time and failure rates, we recommend an AD signature measure formed from a composite of thickness measurements in the entorhinal, fusiform, parahippocampal, mid-temporal, inferior-temporal, and angular gyrus ROIs using ANTs with input segmentations from SPM12.
Key findings
- We show that volume- and thickness-based measures generally perform similarly for separating clinically normal from AD populations, and in correlation with Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage at autopsy.
- Volume-based measures are generally more reliable than thickness measures.
- As expected, volume measures are highly correlated with head size, while thickness measures are generally not.
- Because approaches to statistically correcting volumes for head size vary and may be inadequate to deal with this underlying confound, and because our goal is to determine a measure which can be used to examine age and sex effects in a cohort across a large age range, we thus recommend thickness-based measures.
- Ultimately, based on these criteria and additional practical considerations of run-time and failure rates, we recommend an AD signature measure formed from a composite of thickness measurements in the entorhinal, fusiform, parahippocampal, mid-temporal, inferior-temporal, and angular gyrus ROIs using ANTs with input segmentations from SPM12.
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage. Clinical) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28050342) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Schwarz, C. G., Gunter, J. L., Wiste, H. J., Przybelski, S. A., Weigand, S. D., Ward, C. P., et al. (2016). A large-scale comparison of cortical thickness and volume methods for measuring Alzheimer's disease severity. NeuroImage. Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.05.017
Vancouver
Schwarz CG, Gunter JL, Wiste HJ, Przybelski SA, Weigand SD, Ward CP, et al. A large-scale comparison of cortical thickness and volume methods for measuring Alzheimer's disease severity. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.05.017. PMID: 28050342.
BibTeX
@article{schwarz2016-28050342,
author = {Schwarz, C. G. and Gunter, J. L. and Wiste, H. J. and Przybelski, S. A. and Weigand, S. D. and Ward, C. P. and Senjem, M. L. and Vemuri, P. and others},
title = {{A large-scale comparison of cortical thickness and volume methods for measuring Alzheimer's disease severity}},
journal = {NeuroImage. Clinical},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1016/j.nicl.2016.05.017},
pmid = {28050342},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.05.017}
}
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.