ArticleKorean journal of radiology2022
Agreement and Reliability between Clinically Available Software Programs in Measuring Volumes and Normative Percentiles of Segmented Brain Regions.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of automated MRI-based brain volumetry software for estimating cognitive domains in early Alzheimer's disease.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Reliability of brain volume measures of accelerated 3D T1-weighted images with deep learning-based reconstruction.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Inter-Method Agreement and Reliability for Automatic Brain Volumetry Using Three Different Clinically Available Software Packages.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Clinically feasible automated MRI volumetry of the brain as a prognostic marker in subjective and mild cognitive impairment.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the agreement and reliability of estimating the volumes and normative percentiles (N%) of segmented brain regions among NeuroQuant (NQ), DeepBrain (DB), and FreeSurfer (FS) software programs, focusing on the comparison between NQ and DB. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree-dimensional T1-weighted images of 145 participants (48 healthy participants, 50 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 47 patients with Alzheimer's disease) from a single medical center (SMC) dataset and 130 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset were included in this retrospective study. All images were analyzed with DB, NQ, and FS software to obtain volume estimates and N% of various segmented brain regions. We used Bland-Altman analysis, repeated measures ANOVA, reproducibility coefficient, effect size, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate inter-method agreement and reliability.
resultsAmong the three software programs, the Bland-Altman plot showed a substantial bias, the ICC showed a broad range of reliability (0.004-0.97), and repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant mean volume differences in all brain regions. Similarly, the volume differences of the three software programs had large effect sizes in most regions (0.73-5.51). The effect size was largest in the pallidum in both datasets and smallest in the thalamus and cerebral white matter in the SMC and ADNI datasets, respectively. N% of NQ and DB showed an unacceptably broad Bland-Altman limit of agreement in all brain regions and a very wide range of ICC values (-0.142-0.844) in most brain regions.
conclusionNQ and DB showed significant differences in the measured volume and N%, with limited agreement and reliability for most brain regions. Therefore, users should be aware of the lack of interchangeability between these software programs when they are applied in clinical practice.
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.