1. Automated brain volumetric measures with AccuBrain: version comparison in accuracy, reproducibility and application for diagnosis.
- Author
-
Zhao L, Luo Y, Mok V, and Shi L
- Subjects
- Atrophy diagnostic imaging, Atrophy pathology, Brain diagnostic imaging, Brain pathology, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Alzheimer Disease diagnostic imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging methods
- Abstract
Background: Automated brain volumetry has been widely used to assess brain volumetric changes that may indicate clinical states and progression. Among the tools that implement automated brain volumetry, AccuBrain has been validated for its accuracy, reliability and clinical applications for the older version (IV1.2). Here, we aim to investigate the performance of an updated version (IV2.0) of AccuBrain for future use from several aspects., Methods: Public datasets with 3D T1-weighted scans were included for version comparisons, each with Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and normal control (NC) subjects that were matched in age and gender. For the comparisons of the brain volumetric measures quantified from the same scans, we investigated the difference of hippocampal segmentation accuracy (using Dice similarity coefficient [DSC] as the major measurement). As AccuBrain generates a composite index (AD resemblance atrophy index, AD-RAI) that indicates similarity with AD-like brain atrophy pattern, we also compared the two versions for the diagnostic accuracy of AD versus NC with AD-RAI. Also, we examined the intra-scanner reproducibility of the two versions for the scans acquired with short-intervals using intraclass correlation coefficient., Results: AccuBrain IV2.0 presented significantly higher accuracy of hippocampal segmentation (DSC: 0.91 vs. 0.89, p < 0.001) and diagnostic accuracy of AD (AUC: 0.977 vs. 0.921, p < 0.001) than IV1.2. The results of intra-scanner reproducibility did not favor one version over the other., Conclusions: AccuBrain IV2.0 presented better segmentation accuracy and diagnostic accuracy of AD, and similar intra-scanner reproducibility compared with IV1.2. Both versions should be feasible for use due to the small magnitude of differences., (© 2022. The Author(s).)
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF