umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
MR imaging of brain volumes: evaluation of a fully automatic software
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Radiation Physics.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Radiation Physics.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Diagnostic Radiology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Radiation Physics.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: American Journal of Neuroradiology, ISSN 0195-6108, E-ISSN 1936-959X, Vol. 32, no 2, 408-412 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic assessment of brain volumes is needed in researchand clinical practice. Manual tracing is still the criterionstandard but is time-consuming. It is important to validatethe automatic tools to avoid the problems of clinical studiesdrawing conclusions on the basis of brain volumes estimatedwith methodologic errors. The objective of this study was toevaluate a new commercially available fully automatic softwarefor MR imaging of brain volume assessment. Automatic and expertmanual brain volumes were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging (3T, axial T2 and FLAIR) was performed in 41 healthyelderly volunteers (mean age, 70 ± 6 years) and 20 patientswith hydrocephalus (mean age, 73 ± 7 years). The softwareQBrain was used to manually and automatically measure the followingbrain volumes: ICV, BTV, VV, and WMHV. The manual method hasbeen previously validated and was used as the reference. Agreementbetween the manual and automatic methods was evaluated by usinglinear regression and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS: There were significant differences between the automatic andmanual methods regarding all volumes. The mean differences wereICV = 49 ± 93 mL (mean ± 2SD, n = 61), BTV = 11± 70 mL, VV = –6 ± 10 mL, and WMHV = 2.4± 9 mL. The automatic calculations of brain volumes tookapproximately 2 minutes per investigation.

CONCLUSIONS: The automatic tool is promising and provides rapid assessmentof brain volumes. However, the software needs improvement beforeit is incorporated into research or daily use. Manual segmentationremains the reference method.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 32, no 2, 408-412 p.
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-40046DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2275PubMedID: 21051511OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-40046DiVA: diva2:397692
Available from: 2011-02-15 Created: 2011-02-15 Last updated: 2017-12-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ambarki, KhalidWåhlin, AndersBirgander, RichardEklund, AndersMalm, Jan
By organisation
Radiation PhysicsDiagnostic RadiologyClinical Neuroscience
In the same journal
American Journal of Neuroradiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 191 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf