2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability of MRI-derived measurements of human cerebral cortical thickness: The effects of field strength, scanner upgrade and manufacturer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

55
1,184
4
5

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,371 publications
(1,259 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
55
1,184
4
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Although it would have been of interest to explore potential differences between syndromes, we could not test for differences between syndromes independent from the effect of scanner and imaging sequence, although there is evidence showing that measurements made on different scanners are reliable 19, 30. This was due to the practical and ethical constraints of the study, where children were scanned on a 1.5T scanner at a pediatric focused site and adults on a 3T scanner at a different site.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although it would have been of interest to explore potential differences between syndromes, we could not test for differences between syndromes independent from the effect of scanner and imaging sequence, although there is evidence showing that measurements made on different scanners are reliable 19, 30. This was due to the practical and ethical constraints of the study, where children were scanned on a 1.5T scanner at a pediatric focused site and adults on a 3T scanner at a different site.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, procedures to measure cortical thickness using Freesurfer have been validated against histological analysis (Rosas et al., 2002) and manual measurements (Kuperberg et al., 2003; Salat et al., 2004). Lastly, Freesurfer morphometric procedures have been demonstrated to show good test–retest reliability across scanner manufacturers and field strengths (Han et al., 2006; Reuter, Schmansky, Rosas, & Fischl, 2012). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model incorporates age, sex, estimated total intracranial volume, magnetic field strength and scanner vendor information to estimate subject‐specific regional cortical thickness averages. Age, but also extrinsic factors, such as field strength and scanner platform, may affect cortical thickness estimates and are, therefore, important to take into account (Govindarajan, Freeman, Cai, Rahbar, & Narayana, 2014; Han et al, 2006; Lusebrink, Wollrab, & Speck, 2013; Potvin et al, 2017). To quantify the accuracy, we computed the Euclidean distance for each region between the normative data and the average cortical thickness derived from either the original or corrected data across all subjects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, determination of cortical thickness based on MRI data has been criticized. The variation of myelin density across the cortical mantle, but also errors in T 1 quantification or MRI acquisition biases can result in reduced contrast between GM, WM, and CSF and, as a result, in inaccurate determination of cortical thickness (Han et al, 2006; Zilles & Amunts, 2015). Several software packages, for example, FreeSurfer (Dale, Fischl, & Sereno, 1999), FMRIB's software library (FSL; Smith et al, 2004), Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM; Ashburner, 2009), and CBS High‐Res Brain Processing tools (Bazin et al, 2014), have been developed to automatically classify different tissue classes based on image‐specific criteria using varying segmentation algorithms, hereby putting a large emphasis on bias field removal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%