Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Validation of hippocampal volumes measured using a manual method and two automated methods (FreeSurfer and IBASPM) in chronic major depressive disorder
Tae WS, Kim SS, Lee KU, Nam EC, Kim KW.. Neuroradiology, 2008-04-15
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction To validate the usefulness of the packages available for automated hippocampal volumetry, we measured hippocampal volumes using one manual and two recently developed automated volumetric methods. Methods The study included T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of 21 patients with chronic major depressive disorder (MDD) and 20 normal controls. Using coronal turbo field echo (TFE) MRI with a slice thickness of 1.3 mm, the hippocampal volumes were measured using three methods: manual volumetry, surface-based parcellation using FreeSurfer, and individual atlas-based volumetry using IBASPM. In addition, the intracranial cavity volume (ICV) was measured manually. Results The absolute left hippocampal volume of the patients with MDD measured using all three methods was significantly smaller than the left hippocampal volume of the normal controls (manual P = 0.029, FreeSurfer P = 0.035, IBASPM P = 0.018). After controlling for the ICV, except for the right hippocampal volume measured using FreeSurfer, both measured hippocampal volumes of the patients with MDD were significantly smaller than the measured hippocampal volumes of the normal controls (right manual P = 0.019, IBASPM P = 0.012; left manual P = 0.003, FreeSurfer P = 0.010, IBASPM P = 0.002),. In the intrarater reliability test, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were all excellent (manual right 0.947, left 0.934; FreeSurfer right 1.000, left 1.000; IBASPM right 1.000, left 1.000). In the test of agreement between the volumetric methods, the ICCs were right 0.846 and left 0.848 (manual and FreeSurfer), and right 0.654 and left 0.717 (manual and IBASPM). Conclusion The automated hippocampal volumetric methods showed good agreement with manual hippocampal volumetry, but the volume measured using FreeSurfer was 35% larger and the agreement was questionable with IBASPM. Although the automated methods could detect hippocampal atrophy in the patients with MDD, the results indicate that manual hippocampal volumetry is still the gold standard, while the automated volumetric methods need to be improved.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tae, W. S., Kim, S. S., Lee, K. U., Nam, E. C., & Kim, K. W. (2008). Validation of hippocampal volumes measured using a manual method and two automated methods (FreeSurfer and IBASPM) in chronic major depressive disorder. Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-008-0383-9
Vancouver
Tae WS, Kim SS, Lee KU, Nam EC, Kim KW. Validation of hippocampal volumes measured using a manual method and two automated methods (FreeSurfer and IBASPM) in chronic major depressive disorder. Neuroradiology. 2008. doi:10.1007/s00234-008-0383-9. PMID: 18414838.
BibTeX
@article{tae2008-18414838,
author = {Tae, W. S. and Kim, S. S. and Lee, K. U. and Nam, E. C. and Kim, K. W.},
title = {{Validation of hippocampal volumes measured using a manual method and two automated methods (FreeSurfer and IBASPM) in chronic major depressive disorder}},
journal = {Neuroradiology},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1007/s00234-008-0383-9},
pmid = {18414838},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-008-0383-9}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results The absolute left hippocampal volume of the patients with MDD measured using all three methods was significantly smaller than the left hippocampal volume of the normal controls (manual P = 0.029, FreeSurfer P = 0.035, IBASPM P = 0.018).
- After controlling for the ICV, except for the right hippocampal volume measured using FreeSurfer, both measured hippocampal volumes of the patients with MDD were significantly smaller than the measured hippocampal volumes of the normal controls (right manual P = 0.019, IBASPM P = 0.012; left manual P = 0.003, FreeSurfer P = 0.010, IBASPM P = 0.002),.
- Although the automated methods could detect hippocampal atrophy in the patients with MDD, the results indicate that manual hippocampal volumetry is still the gold standard, while the automated volumetric methods need to be improved.
Study details
- Participants21
- 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 (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 | 1 / 5 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 21 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 18414838) |
| 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 “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.