Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Automated cross-sectional and longitudinal hippocampal volume measurement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease
Leung KK, Barnes J, Ridgway GR, Bartlett JW, Clarkson MJ, Macdonald K, Schuff N, Fox NC et al.. NeuroImage, 2010-03-15
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Volume and change in volume of the hippocampus are both important markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Delineation of the structure on MRI is time-consuming and therefore reliable automated methods are required. We describe an improvement (multiple-atlas propagation and segmentation (MAPS)) to our template library-based segmentation technique. The improved technique uses non-linear registration of the best-matched templates from our manually segmented library to generate multiple segmentations and combines them using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. Change in volume over 12months (MAPS-HBSI) was measured by applying the boundary shift integral using MAPS regions. Methods were developed and validated against manual measures using subsets from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). The best method was applied to 682 ADNI subjects, at baseline and 12-month follow-up, enabling assessment of volumes and atrophy rates in control, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD groups, and within MCI subgroups classified by subsequent clinical outcome. We compared our measures with those generated by Surgical Navigation Technologies (SNT) available from ADNI. The accuracy of our volumes was one of the highest reported (mean(SD) Jaccard Index 0.80(0.04) (N=30)). Both MAPS baseline volume and MAPS-HBSI atrophy rate distinguished between control, MCI and AD groups. Comparing MCI subgroups (reverters, stable and converters): volumes were lower and rates higher in converters compared with stable and reverter groups (p< or =0.03). MAPS-HBSI required the lowest sample sizes (78 subjects) for a hypothetical trial. In conclusion, the MAPS and MAPS-HBSI methods give accurate and reliable volumes and atrophy rates across the clinical spectrum from healthy aging to AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Leung, K. K., Barnes, J., Ridgway, G. R., Bartlett, J. W., Clarkson, M. J., Macdonald, K., et al. (2010). Automated cross-sectional and longitudinal hippocampal volume measurement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.018
Vancouver
Leung KK, Barnes J, Ridgway GR, Bartlett JW, Clarkson MJ, Macdonald K, et al. Automated cross-sectional and longitudinal hippocampal volume measurement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. NeuroImage. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.018. PMID: 20230901.
BibTeX
@article{leung2010-20230901,
author = {Leung, K. K. and Barnes, J. and Ridgway, G. R. and Bartlett, J. W. and Clarkson, M. J. and Macdonald, K. and Schuff, N. and Fox, N. C. and others},
title = {{Automated cross-sectional and longitudinal hippocampal volume measurement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.018},
pmid = {20230901},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.018}
}
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.
Key findings
- Comparing MCI subgroups (reverters, stable and converters): volumes were lower and rates higher in converters compared with stable and reverter groups (p< or =0.03).
- In conclusion, the MAPS and MAPS-HBSI methods give accurate and reliable volumes and atrophy rates across the clinical spectrum from healthy aging to AD.
Study details
- Participants30
- Effect sizeor =0.03
- 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 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 30 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 20230901) |
| 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.
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.