ArticleNeuroImage2026
Test-retest reliability of FreeSurfer measures of neurodegeneration.
Article in NeuroImage, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable structural brain measurements are essential for studying neurodegeneration and for designing adequately powered aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. We evaluated the test-retest reliability of FreeSurfer 7.1 morphometric measures in 100 older adults (mean age 73.5 years) ranging from cognitively unimpaired to dementia. Each participant underwent two T1-weighted 3T MRI scans on the same scanner within a short interval (mean 5.5 weeks), minimizing biological change. Segmentation was performed in both standard cross-sectional and longitudinal FreeSurfer modes, focusing on AD-relevant volumes of entorhinal cortex, hippocampus, lateral ventricles, choroid plexus, and the AD cortical thickness signature. Reliability was quantified using absolute and root-mean-square test-retest differences, standard deviation of differences, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Longitudinal processing improved precision by 15-50% across most measures compared with cross-sectional processing, with the largest gain observed for entorhinal thickness. Larger, anatomically well-defined regions (e.g., hippocampus, AD signature) demonstrated higher reliability than small structures or those with complex geometry (e.g., entorhinal cortex, choroid plexus). Image quality, indexed by the Euler characteristic, was the only factor significantly associated with measurement variability; reliability was unrelated to age, sex, cognitive status, inter-scan interval, or amyloid/tau PET burden. Power analyses indicated that detecting a 1% within-individual change requires sample sizes ranging from 36 (AD signature) to >300 (entorhinal cortex). We observed low reliability of choroid plexus volumetry by FreeSurfer 7. These results provide practical benchmarks for expected FreeSurfer measurement variability in older adults. They highlight the advantages of longitudinal processing and rigorous quality control for research on brain aging and AD.
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.