ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2021
Evaluation of Reproducibility of Brain Volumetry between Commercial Software, Inbrain and Established Research Purpose Method, FreeSurfer.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiplatform Morphometric Profiling of Whole-Brain, Cerebellar Subregional, and Thalamic Nuclei Alterations in Pediatric Migraine Without Aura.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Current Clinical Applications of Structural MRI in Neurological Disorders.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Review
- Radiological Reporting of Brain Atrophy in MRI: Real-Life Comparison Between Narrative Reports, Semiquantitative Scales and Automated Software-Based Volumetry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Volume and Permeability of White Matter Hyperintensity on Cognition: A DCE Imaging Study of an Older Cohort With and Without Cognitive Impairment.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- Predictive Value of Brain Volumetry in the Response to Subthalamotomy Using High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment in Patients With Parkinson's Disease.Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Comparison of Inter-Method Agreement and Reliability for Automatic Brain Volumetry Using Three Different Clinically Available Software Packages.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Automated brain segmentation and volumetry in dementia diagnostics: a narrative review with emphasis on FreeSurfer.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Review
- Comparison of Normative Percentiles of Brain Volume Obtained from NeuroQuantJournal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a deep learning-based automatic segmentation model for assessing intracranial volume: comparison with NeuroQuant, FreeSurfer, and SynthSeg.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- [Brain MRI-Based Artificial Intelligence Software in Patients with Neurodegenerative Diseases: Current Status].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2022Review
- [Expert Opinions and Recommendations for the Clinical Use of Quantitative Analysis Software for MRI-Based Brain Volumetry].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeWe aimed to determine the intermethod reproducibility between the commercial software Inbrain (MIDAS IT) and the established research-purpose method FreeSurfer, as well as the effect of MRI resolution and the pathological condition of subjects on their intermethod reproducibility.
methodsThis study included 45 healthy volunteers and 85 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In 43 of the 85 patients with MCI, three-dimensional, T1-weighted MRI data were obtained at an in-plane resolution of 1.2 mm. The data of the remaining 42 patients with MCI and the healthy volunteers were obtained at an in-plane resolution of 1.0 mm. The within-subject coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and effect size were calculated, and means were compared using paired
resultsOverall the two methods showed excellent reproducibility across all regions of the brain (CoV=0.5-3.9, ICC=0.93 to >0.99). In the subgroup of healthy volunteers, the intermethod reliability was only good in some regions (frontal, temporal, cingulate, and insular). The intermethod reproducibility was better in the 1.0-mm group than the 1.2-mm group in all regions other than the nucleus accumbens.
conclusionsInbrain and FreeSurfer showed good-to-excellent intermethod reproducibility for volumetric measurements. Nevertheless, some noticeable differences were found based on subject condition, image resolution, and brain region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.