ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Estimation of the Intracranial Volume Is Crucial in Multi-Site Studies: Reliability for Longitudinal Investigations and Traveling Subjects.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate estimation of the total intracranial volume (TIV) is essential in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, particularly for multi-site longitudinal investigations. This study assessed the validity and reliability of segmentation-based TIV (sbTIV) implemented in FreeSurfer version 7.2 for large-scale multi-site MRI data, by comparing it with the widely used estimated TIV (eTIV). We analyzed 6524 structural MRI scans from two multi-site projects in Japan, consisting of 30 procedures across 21 sites, 13 MRI machine types, 3 vendors, and 4 protocol categories. We tested the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between eTIV and sbTIV for each procedure and identified procedural factors affecting these ICCs using a general linear model. Machine- and protocol-specific biases were considered by a traveling subject harmonization approach. To specifically examine the reliability and validity of the longitudinal scans, we employed a general linear mixed model (GLMM). Overall agreement between eTIV and sbTIV was good (ICC = 0.78) but varied across procedures (0.62-0.94). The 1.0 mm isotropic protocol showed the highest reliability. Notably, there was poor consistency in participants with eTIV values of 120,000 mm
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.