Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Hippocampus size on brain scans

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Purpose Quantitative measurement of hippocampal volume using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable tool for detection and lateralization of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis (mTLE). We compare two automated hippocampal volume methodologies and manual hippocampal volumetry to determine which technique is most sensitive for the detection of hippocampal atrophy in mTLE. Methods We acquired a three-dimensional (3D) volumetric sequence in 10 patients with left-lateralized mTLE and 10 age-matched controls. Hippocampal volumes were measured manually, and using the software packages Freesurfer and FSL-FIRST. The sensitivities of the techniques were compared by determining the effect size for average volume reduction in patients with mTLE compared to controls. The volumes and spatial overlap of the automated and manual segmentations were also compared. Results Significant volume reduction in affected hippocampi in mTLE compared to controls was detected by manual hippocampal volume measurement (p < 0.01, effect size 33.2%), Freesurfer (p < 0.01, effect size 20.8%), and FSL-FIRST (p < 0.01, effect size 13.6%) after correction for brain volume. Freesurfer correlated reasonably (r = 0.74, p << 0.01) with this manual segmentation and FSL-FIRST relatively poorly (r = 0.47, p << 0.01). The spatial overlap between manual and automated segmentation was reduced in affected hippocampi, suggesting the accuracy of automated segmentation is reduced in pathologic brains. Discussion Expert manual hippocampal volumetry is more sensitive than both automated methods for the detection of hippocampal atrophy associated with mTLE. In our study Freesurfer was the most sensitive to hippocampal atrophy in mTLE and could be used if expert manual segmentation is not available.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Epilepsia)
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 2009 — 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 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 19682030)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Pardoe, H. R., Pell, G. S., Abbott, D. F., & Jackson, G. D. (2009). Hippocampal volume assessment in temporal lobe epilepsy: How good is automated segmentation? Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02243.x

Vancouver

Pardoe HR, Pell GS, Abbott DF, Jackson GD. Hippocampal volume assessment in temporal lobe epilepsy: How good is automated segmentation? Epilepsia. 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02243.x. PMID: 19682030.

BibTeX

@article{pardoe2009-19682030,
  author  = {Pardoe, H. R. and Pell, G. S. and Abbott, D. F. and Jackson, G. D.},
  title   = {{Hippocampal volume assessment in temporal lobe epilepsy: How good is automated segmentation?}},
  journal = {Epilepsia},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02243.x},
  pmid    = {19682030},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02243.x}
}

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 →