Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist?
Jody Tanabe, Maili F Lim, Siddhant Dash, Jack Pattee, Brandon Steach, Peter Pressman, Brianne M Bettcher, Justin M Honce et al.. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024-11-07
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Plain-language summary
There was no statistically significant effect of the report on overall correct diagnoses. The proportion of "exact" correct diagnoses was higher with the report versus without the report for AD (0.52 versus 0.38) and FTD (0.49 versus 0.32) and lower for cognitively healthy (0.75 versus 0.89). The proportion of "rough" correct diagnoses of neurodegenerative disease was higher with the report than without the report within the AD group (0.59 versus 0.41), and it was similar within the FTD group (0.66 versus 0.63). Post hoc within-group analysis suggested that the report increased the accuracy in AD (OR = 2.77) and decreased the accuracy in cognitively healthy (OR = 0.25). Residualized hippocampal volumes were smaller in AD (mean difference -1.8; multiple comparisons correction, -2.8 to -0.8; P < .001) and FTD (mean difference -1.2; multiple comparisons correction, -2.2 to -0.1; P = .02) compared with cognitively healthy. The availability of a brain volumetric report did not improve neuroradiologists' accuracy over visual assessment in diagnosing AD or FTD in this limited sample. Post hoc analysis suggested that the report may have biased readers incorrectly toward a diagnosis of neurodegeneration in cognitively healthy adults.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tanabe, J., Lim, M. F., Dash, S., Pattee, J., Steach, B., Pressman, P., et al. (2024). Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist? AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a8406
Vancouver
Tanabe J, Lim MF, Dash S, Pattee J, Steach B, Pressman P, et al. Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist? AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology. 2024. doi:10.3174/ajnr.a8406. PMID: 39362700.
BibTeX
@article{tanabe2024-39362700,
author = {Tanabe, Jody and Lim, Maili F and Dash, Siddhant and Pattee, Jack and Steach, Brandon and Pressman, Peter and Bettcher, Brianne M and Honce, Justin M and others},
title = {{Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist?}},
journal = {AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3174/ajnr.a8406},
pmid = {39362700},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a8406}
}
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
- There was no statistically significant effect of the report on overall correct diagnoses.
- The proportion of "exact" correct diagnoses was higher with the report versus without the report for AD (0.52 versus 0.38) and FTD (0.49 versus 0.32) and lower for cognitively healthy (0.75 versus 0.89).
- The proportion of "rough" correct diagnoses of neurodegenerative disease was higher with the report than without the report within the AD group (0.59 versus 0.41), and it was similar within the FTD group (0.66 versus 0.63).
- Post hoc within-group analysis suggested that the report increased the accuracy in AD (OR = 2.77) and decreased the accuracy in cognitively healthy (OR = 0.25).
- Residualized hippocampal volumes were smaller in AD (mean difference -1.8; multiple comparisons correction, -2.8 to -0.8; P < .001) and FTD (mean difference -1.2; multiple comparisons correction, -2.2 to -0.1; P = .02) compared with cognitively healthy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Effect sizeOR = 2.77; OR = 0.25
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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 | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39362700) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging from nearby years
Also tagged “diffusion”
172 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diffusion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 172 tagged studies.