Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Discrimination between Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal aging by using automated segmentation of the hippocampus
Colliot O, Chételat G, Chupin M, Desgranges B, Magnin B, Benali H, Dubois B, Garnero L et al.. Radiology, 2008-05-05
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Purpose To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of automated hippocampal volumetry to help distinguish between patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and elderly controls, by using established criteria for patients with AD and MCI as the reference standard. Materials and methods The regional ethics committee approved the study and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study included 25 patients with AD (11 men, 14 women; mean age +/- standard deviation [SD], 73 years +/- 6; Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, 24.4 +/- 2.7), 24 patients with amnestic MCI (10 men, 14 women; mean age +/- SD, 74 years +/- 8; MMSE score, 27.2 +/- 1.4) and 25 elderly healthy controls (13 men, 12 women; mean age +/- SD, 64 years +/- 8). For each participant, the hippocampi were automatically segmented on three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) images with high spatial resolution. Segmentation was performed by using recently developed software that allows fast segmentation with minimal user input. Group differences in hippocampal volume were assessed by using Student t tests. To obtain robust estimates of P values, the correct classification rate, sensitivity, and specificity, bootstrap methods were used. Results Significant hippocampal volume reductions were detected in all groups of patients (-32% in AD patients vs controls, P < .001; -19% in MCI patients vs controls, P < .001; and -15% in AD patients vs MCI patients, P < .01). Individual classification on the basis of hippocampal volume resulted in 84% correct classification (sensitivity, 84%; specificity, 84%) between AD patients and controls and 73% correct classification (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 70%) between MCI patients and controls. Conclusion This automated method can serve as an alternative to manual tracing and may thus prove useful in assisting with the diagnosis of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Colliot, O., Chételat, G., Chupin, M., Desgranges, B., Magnin, B., Benali, H., et al. (2008). Discrimination between Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal aging by using automated segmentation of the hippocampus. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481070876
Vancouver
Colliot O, Chételat G, Chupin M, Desgranges B, Magnin B, Benali H, et al. Discrimination between Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal aging by using automated segmentation of the hippocampus. Radiology. 2008. doi:10.1148/radiol.2481070876. PMID: 18458242.
BibTeX
@article{colliot2008-18458242,
author = {Colliot, O. and Chételat, G. and Chupin, M. and Desgranges, B. and Magnin, B. and Benali, H. and Dubois, B. and Garnero, L. and others},
title = {{Discrimination between Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal aging by using automated segmentation of the hippocampus}},
journal = {Radiology},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1148/radiol.2481070876},
pmid = {18458242},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481070876}
}
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
- Results Significant hippocampal volume reductions were detected in all groups of patients (-32% in AD patients vs controls, P < .001; -19% in MCI patients vs controls, P < .001; and -15% in AD patients vs MCI patients, P < .01).
Study details
- Participants25
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 (Radiology) |
| 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 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 25 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 18458242) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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.
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.