Mangesius Stephanie, Haider Lukas, Lenhart Lukas, Steiger Ruth, Prados Carrasco Ferran, Scherfler Christoph, Gizewski Elke R
Department of Neuroradiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Neuroimaging Core Facility, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Biomedicines. 2022 Feb 12;10(2):432. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10020432.
Brain volumetric software is increasingly suggested for clinical routine. The present study quantifies the agreement across different software applications. Ten cases with and ten gender- and age-adjusted healthy controls without hippocampal atrophy (median age: 70; 25-75% range: 64-77 years and 74; 66-78 years) were retrospectively selected from a previously published cohort of Alzheimer's dementia patients and normal ageing controls. Hippocampal volumes were computed based on 3 Tesla T1-MPRAGE-sequences with FreeSurfer (FS), Statistical-Parametric-Mapping (SPM; Neuromorphometrics and Hammers atlases), Geodesic-Information-Flows (GIF), Similarity-and-Truth-Estimation-for-Propagated-Segmentations (STEPS), and Quantib™. MTA (medial temporal lobe atrophy) scores were manually rated. Volumetric measures of each individual were compared against the mean of all applications with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Comparing against the mean of all methods, moderate to low agreement was present considering categorization of hippocampal volumes into quartiles. ICCs ranged noticeably between applications (left hippocampus (LH): from 0.42 (STEPS) to 0.88 (FS); right hippocampus (RH): from 0.36 (Quantib™) to 0.86 (FS). Mean differences between individual methods and the mean of all methods [mm] were considerable (LH: FS -209, SPM-Neuromorphometrics -820; SPM-Hammers -1474; Quantib™ -680; GIF 891; STEPS 2218; RH: FS -232, SPM-Neuromorphometrics -745; SPM-Hammers -1547; Quantib™ -723; GIF 982; STEPS 2188). In this clinically relevant sample size with large spread in data ranging from normal aging to severe atrophy, hippocampal volumes derived by well-accepted applications were quantitatively different. Thus, interchangeable use is not recommended.
越来越多的人建议在临床常规中使用脑容量软件。本研究对不同软件应用之间的一致性进行了量化。从先前发表的一组阿尔茨海默病痴呆患者和正常衰老对照队列中，回顾性选取了10例有海马萎缩的病例和10例年龄和性别匹配的无海马萎缩的健康对照（中位年龄：70岁；25-75%范围：64-77岁和74岁；66-78岁）。基于3特斯拉T1-MPRAGE序列，使用FreeSurfer（FS）、统计参数映射（SPM；神经形态计量学和哈默斯图谱）、测地线信息流（GIF）、传播分割的相似性和真值估计（STEPS）以及Quantib™计算海马体积。手动评定内侧颞叶萎缩（MTA）评分。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和布兰德-奥特曼图，将每个个体的体积测量值与所有应用的平均值进行比较。将海马体积分为四分位数进行比较时，与所有方法的平均值相比，一致性为中度到低度。不同应用之间的ICC差异显著（左侧海马体（LH）：从0.42（STEPS）到0.88（FS）；右侧海马体（RH）：从0.36（Quantib™）到0.86（FS））。各方法与所有方法平均值之间的平均差异[mm]相当大（LH：FS -209，SPM-神经形态计量学 -820；SPM-哈默斯 -1474；Quantib™ -680；GIF 891；STEPS 2218；RH：FS -232，SPM-神经形态计量学 -745；SPM-哈默斯 -1547；Quantib™ -723；GIF 982；STEPS 2188）。在这个临床相关样本量中，数据范围从正常衰老到严重萎缩差异很大，公认应用得出的海马体积在数量上存在差异。因此，不建议交替使用。
