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

• Published in: Korean journal of radiology Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 405 - 414
• Main Authors: Lee, Ji Young, Oh, Se Won, Chung, Mi Sun, Park, Ji Eun, Moon, Yeonsil, Jeon, Hong Jun, Moon, Won Jin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Radiology 01.03.2021; 대한영상의학회
• Subjects: Age; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease - diagnostic imaging; Alzheimer Disease - physiopathology; Alzheimer's disease; Atrophy; Automation; Brain - diagnostic imaging; Brain - physiology; Brain research; Case-Control Studies; Clinical medicine; Cognitive ability; Cognitive Dysfunction - diagnostic imaging; Cognitive Dysfunction - physiopathology; Deep learning; Dementia; FDA approval; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Medical screening; Middle Aged; Neuroimaging and Head & Neck; Quality management; Reproducibility of Results; Software; 방사선과학; Brain volumetry; Reliability; MRI; Alzheimer's disease; Softwares; NeuroQuant
• ISSN: 1229-6929; 2005-8330
• DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2020.0518

To compare two clinically available MR volumetry software, NeuroQuant® (NQ) and Inbrain® (IB), and examine the inter-method reliabilities and differences between them. 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. 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 < < 0.96, 0.83 < ICC < 0.98) except for the pallidum, which showed poor reliability (left: = 0.03, ICC = 0.06; right: = -0.05, ICC = -0.09). For the measurements of effect size, volume differences were large in most regions (0.05 < < 6.15). The effect size was the largest in the pallidum and smallest in the cerebellum. 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.