Volume determination of amygdala and hippocampus at 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI in temporal lobe epilepsy

Scorzin, Jasmin; Kaaden, Sabine; Quesada, Carlos M.; Müller, Christian-Andreas; Fimmers, Rolf; Urbach, Horst; Schramm, Johannes

doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2008.06.012

Cited by 38 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…27,28 The limitations of this study include the limited percentage of cases that had histologic confirmation; nevertheless, our rate of pathologic proof is greater than that of most other published series. We also struggled with the inclusion of bilateral MTS cases in the analysis, given that we were using an asymmetry index and not an absolute classification of individual hippocampal volumes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Mesial Temporal Sclerosis: Accuracy of NeuroQuant versus Neuroradiologist

Azab

Carone

Ying

et al. 2015

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:We sought to compare the accuracy of a volumetric fully automated computer assessment of hippocampal volume asymmetry versus neuroradiologists' interpretations of the temporal lobes for mesial temporal sclerosis. Detecting mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS) is important for the evaluation of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy as it often guides surgical intervention. One feature of MTS is hippocampal volume loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Mesial Temporal Sclerosis: Accuracy of NeuroQuant versus Neuroradiologist

Azab

Carone

Ying

et al. 2015

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modulated GM segmented images were corrected for nonlinear warping only (http://dbm.neuro.uni-jena. de/vbm/segmentation/modulation/), making correcting for total intracranial volume of the individual unnecessary (see Scorzin et al, 2008). Thus, global brain volume effects were removed from the data to allow inferences on local GM volume changes.…”

Section: Image Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced striatal volume in cocaine-dependent patients

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Registro de acceso restringido Este recurso no está disponible en acceso abierto por política de la editorial. No obstante, se puede acceder al texto completo desde la Universitat Jaume I o si el usuario cuenta con suscripción. Registre d'accés restringit Aquest recurs no està disponible en accés obert per política de l'editorial. No obstant això, es pot accedir al text complet des de la Universitat Jaume I o si l'usuari compta amb subscripció. Restricted access item This item isn't open access because of publisher's policy. The full--text version is only available from Jaume I University or if the user has a running suscription to the publisher's contents.

show abstract

“…Also, preliminary results from Chow et al (2013) suggest that 3T images may be able to detect volume differences that are not apparent at 1.5T. In contrast, others have found no significant differences between manually segmented regions (hippocampus and amygdala) on 1.5T and 3T images (Briellmann et al 2001; Scorzin et al 2008) and Ho et al (2010) found that sample size estimates for detecting a slowing of mild cognitive impairment using Tensor Based Morphology did not differ between 1.5T and 3T scans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Template-Based Hippocampal Segmentations from MRI: The Effects of 1.5T or 3T Field Strength on Accuracy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hippocampal volumetric measures may be useful for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis and disease tracking; however, manual segmentation of the hippocampus is labour-intensive. Therefore, automated techniques are necessary for large studies and to make hippocampal measures feasible for clinical use. As large studies and clinical centres are moving from using 1.5 Tesla (T) scanners to higher field strengths it is important to assess whether specific image processing techniques can be used at these field strengths. This study investigated whether an automated hippocampal segmentation technique (HMAPS: hippocampal multi-atlas propagation and segmentation) and volume change measures (BSI: boundary shift integral) were as accurate at 3T as at 1.5T. Eighteen Alzheimer’s disease patients and 18 controls with 1.5T and 3T scans at baseline and 12-month follow-up were used from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. Baseline scans were segmented manually and using HMAPS and their similarity was measured by the Jaccard index. BSIs were calculated for serial image pairs. We calculated pair-wise differences between manual and HMAPS rates at 1.5T and 3T and compared the SD of these differences at each field strength. The difference in mean Jaccards (manual and HMAPS) between 1.5T and 3T was small with narrow confidence intervals (CIs) and did not appear to be segmentor dependent. The SDs of the difference between volumes from manual and automated segmentations were similar at 1.5T and 3T, with a relatively narrow CI for their ratios. The SDs of the difference between BSIs from manual and automated segmentations were also similar at 1.5T and 3T but with a wider CI for their ratios. This study supports the use of our automated hippocampal voluming methods, developed using 1.5T images, with 3T images.

show abstract

Volume determination of amygdala and hippocampus at 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI in temporal lobe epilepsy

Cited by 38 publications

References 22 publications

Mesial Temporal Sclerosis: Accuracy of NeuroQuant versus Neuroradiologist

Mesial Temporal Sclerosis: Accuracy of NeuroQuant versus Neuroradiologist

Reduced striatal volume in cocaine-dependent patients

Automated Template-Based Hippocampal Segmentations from MRI: The Effects of 1.5T or 3T Field Strength on Accuracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About