잠시만 기다려 주세요. 로딩중입니다.

Clinically Available Software for Automatic Brain Volumetry: Comparisons of Volume Measurements and Validation of Intermethod Reliability

Korean Journal of Radiology 2021년 22권 3호 p.405 ~ 414
이지영, 오세원, 정미선, 박지은, 문연실, 전홍준, 문원진,
소속 상세정보
이지영 ( Lee Ji-Young ) - Hanyang University Medical Center Department of Radiology
오세원 ( Oh Se-Won ) - Catholic University College of Medicine Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital Department of Radiology
정미선 ( Chung Mi-Sun ) - Chung-Ang University Hospital Department of Radiology
박지은 ( Park Ji-Eun ) - University of Ulsan College of Medicine Asan Medical Center Department of Radiology
문연실 ( Moon Yeon-Sil ) - Konkuk University Medical Center Department of Neurology
전홍준 ( Jeon Hong-Jun ) - Konkuk University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry
문원진 ( Moon Won-Jin ) - Konkuk University Medical Center Department of Radiology

Abstract


Objective: To compare two clinically available MR volumetry software, NeuroQuant® (NQ) and Inbrain® (IB), and examine the inter-method reliabilities and differences between them.

Materials and Methods: This study included 172 subjects (age range, 55?88 years; mean age, 71.2 years), comprising 45 normal healthy subjects, 85 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 42 patients with Alzheimer's disease. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were analyzed with IB and NQ. Mean differences were compared with the paired t test. Inter-method reliability was evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Effect sizes were also obtained to document the standardized mean differences.

Results: The paired t test showed significant volume differences in most regions except for the amygdala between the two methods. Nevertheless, inter-method measurements between IB and NQ showed good to excellent reliability (0.72 < r < 0.96, 0.83 < ICC < 0.98) except for the pallidum, which showed poor reliability (left: r = 0.03, ICC = 0.06; right: r = ?0.05, ICC = ?0.09). For the measurements of effect size, volume differences were large in most regions (0.05 < r < 6.15). The effect size was the largest in the pallidum and smallest in the cerebellum.

Conclusion: Comparisons between IB and NQ showed significantly different volume measurements with large effect sizes. However, they showed good to excellent inter-method reliability in volumetric measurements for all brain regions, with the exception of the pallidum. Clinicians using these commercial software should take into consideration that different volume measurements could be obtained depending on the software used.

키워드

MRI; Alzheimer's disease; Softwares; Brain volumetry; NeuroQuant®; Reliability

원문 및 링크아웃 정보

  

등재저널 정보