In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.

While manual tracing is the method of choice in measuring hippocampal volume, its time intensive nature and proneness to human error make automated methods attractive, especially when applied to large samples. Few studies have systematically compared the performance of the two techniques. In this st...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Nicolas Cherbuin, Kaarin J Anstey, Chantal Réglade-Meslin, Perminder S Sachdev
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2009
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/44b0062f0c684eebb8b576d36ff25c15
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:44b0062f0c684eebb8b576d36ff25c15
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:44b0062f0c684eebb8b576d36ff25c152021-11-25T06:16:07ZIn vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0005265https://doaj.org/article/44b0062f0c684eebb8b576d36ff25c152009-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/19370155/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203While manual tracing is the method of choice in measuring hippocampal volume, its time intensive nature and proneness to human error make automated methods attractive, especially when applied to large samples. Few studies have systematically compared the performance of the two techniques. In this study, we measured hippocampal volumes in a large (N = 403) population-based sample of individuals aged 44-48 years using manual tracing by a trained researcher and automated procedure using Freesurfer (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu) imaging suite. Results showed that absolute hippocampal volumes assessed with these methods were significantly different, with automated measures using the Freesurfer software suite being significantly larger, by 23% for the left and 29% for the right hippocampus. The correlation between the two methods varied from 0.61 to 0.80, with lower correlations for hippocampi with visible abnormalities. Inspection of 2D and 3D models suggested that this difference was largely due to greater inclusion of boundary voxels by the automated method and variations in subiculum/entorhinal segmentation. The correlation between left and right hippocampal volumes was very similar by the two methods. The relationship of hippocampal volumes to selected sociodemographic and cognitive variables was not affected by the measurement method, with each measure showing an association with memory performance and suggesting that both were equally valid for this purpose. This study supports the use of automated measures, based on Freesurfer in this instance, as being sufficiently reliable and valid particularly in the context of larger sample sizes when the research question does not rely on 'true' hippocampal volumes.Nicolas CherbuinKaarin J AnsteyChantal Réglade-MeslinPerminder S SachdevPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 4, Iss 4, p e5265 (2009)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Nicolas Cherbuin Kaarin J Anstey Chantal Réglade-Meslin Perminder S Sachdev In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
description	While manual tracing is the method of choice in measuring hippocampal volume, its time intensive nature and proneness to human error make automated methods attractive, especially when applied to large samples. Few studies have systematically compared the performance of the two techniques. In this study, we measured hippocampal volumes in a large (N = 403) population-based sample of individuals aged 44-48 years using manual tracing by a trained researcher and automated procedure using Freesurfer (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu) imaging suite. Results showed that absolute hippocampal volumes assessed with these methods were significantly different, with automated measures using the Freesurfer software suite being significantly larger, by 23% for the left and 29% for the right hippocampus. The correlation between the two methods varied from 0.61 to 0.80, with lower correlations for hippocampi with visible abnormalities. Inspection of 2D and 3D models suggested that this difference was largely due to greater inclusion of boundary voxels by the automated method and variations in subiculum/entorhinal segmentation. The correlation between left and right hippocampal volumes was very similar by the two methods. The relationship of hippocampal volumes to selected sociodemographic and cognitive variables was not affected by the measurement method, with each measure showing an association with memory performance and suggesting that both were equally valid for this purpose. This study supports the use of automated measures, based on Freesurfer in this instance, as being sufficiently reliable and valid particularly in the context of larger sample sizes when the research question does not rely on 'true' hippocampal volumes.
format	article
author	Nicolas Cherbuin Kaarin J Anstey Chantal Réglade-Meslin Perminder S Sachdev
author_facet	Nicolas Cherbuin Kaarin J Anstey Chantal Réglade-Meslin Perminder S Sachdev
author_sort	Nicolas Cherbuin
title	In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
title_short	In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
title_full	In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
title_fullStr	In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
title_full_unstemmed	In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
title_sort	in vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2009
url	https://doaj.org/article/44b0062f0c684eebb8b576d36ff25c15
work_keys_str_mv	AT nicolascherbuin invivohippocampalmeasurementandmemoryacomparisonofmanualtracingandautomatedsegmentationinalargecommunitybasedsample AT kaarinjanstey invivohippocampalmeasurementandmemoryacomparisonofmanualtracingandautomatedsegmentationinalargecommunitybasedsample AT chantalreglademeslin invivohippocampalmeasurementandmemoryacomparisonofmanualtracingandautomatedsegmentationinalargecommunitybasedsample AT perminderssachdev invivohippocampalmeasurementandmemoryacomparisonofmanualtracingandautomatedsegmentationinalargecommunitybasedsample
_version_	1718413977998852096

In vivo hippocampal measurement and memory: a comparison of manual tracing and automated segmentation in a large community-based sample.

Ejemplares similares