This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

47/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Hippocampus size on brain scans

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Atlas normalization, as commonly used by functional data analysis, provides an automated solution to the widely encountered problem of correcting for head size variation in regional and whole-brain morphometric analyses, so long as an age- and population-appropriate target atlas is used. In the present article, we develop and validate an atlas normalization procedure for head size correction using manual total intracranial volume (TIV) measurement as a reference. The target image used for atlas transformation consisted of a merged young and old-adult template specifically created for cross age-span normalization. Automated atlas transformation generated the Atlas Scaling Factor (ASF) defined as the volume-scaling factor required to match each individual to the atlas target. Because atlas normalization equates head size, the ASF should be proportional to TIV. A validation analysis was performed on 147 subjects to evaluate ASF as a proxy for manual TIV measurement. In addition, 19 subjects were imaged on multiple days to assess test-retest reliability. Results indicated that the ASF was (1) equivalent to manual TIV normalization (r = 0.93), (2) reliable across multiple imaging sessions (r = 1.00; mean absolute percentage of difference = 0.51%), (3) able to connect between-gender head size differences, and (4) minimally biased in demented older adults with marked atrophy. Hippocampal volume differences between nondemented (n = 49) and demented (n = 50) older adults (measured manually) were equivalent whether corrected using manual TIV or automated ASF (effect sizes of 1.29 and 1.46, respectively). To provide normative values, ASF was used to automatically derive estimated TIV (eTIV) in 335 subjects aged 15-96 including both clinically characterized nondemented (n = 77) and demented (n = 90) older adults. Differences in eTIV between nondemented and demented groups were negligible, thus failing to support the hypothesis that large premorbid brain size moderates Alzheimer's disease. Gender was the only robust factor that influenced eTIV. Men showed an approximately approximately 12% larger eTIV than women. These results demonstrate that atlas normalization using appropriate template images provides a robust, automated method for head size correction that is equivalent to manual TIV correction in studies of aging and dementia. Thus, atlas normalization provides a common framework for both morphometric and functional data analysis.

Key findings

Results indicated that the ASF was (1) equivalent to manual TIV normalization (r = 0.93), (2) reliable across multiple imaging sessions (r = 1.00; mean absolute percentage of difference = 0.51%), (3) able to connect between-gender head size differences, and (4) minimally biased in demented older adults with marked atrophy.
These results demonstrate that atlas normalization using appropriate template images provides a robust, automated method for head size correction that is equivalent to manual TIV correction in studies of aging and dementia.

Study details

Participants49
Effect size0.51%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage)
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	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2004 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	1 / 4	49 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 15488422)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	27 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100.
Total	47 / 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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Buckner, R. L., Head, D., Parker, J., Fotenos, A. F., Marcus, D., Morris, J. C., et al. (2004). A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.06.018

Vancouver

Buckner RL, Head D, Parker J, Fotenos AF, Marcus D, Morris JC, et al. A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume. NeuroImage. 2004. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.06.018. PMID: 15488422.

BibTeX

@article{buckner2004-15488422,
  author  = {Buckner, R. L. and Head, D. and Parker, J. and Fotenos, A. F. and Marcus, D. and Morris, J. C. and Snyder, A. Z.},
  title   = {{A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume}},
  journal = {NeuroImage},
  year    = {2004},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.06.018},
  pmid    = {15488422},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.06.018}
}

Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans

Also tagged “disorder”

492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Hippocampus size on brain scans

See all studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans →