Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Mar;62(3):255-261.
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2021.62.3.255.

Comparison of Automated Brain Volume Measures by NeuroQuant vs. Freesurfer in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Effect of Slice Thickness

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Automated Brain Volume Measures by NeuroQuant vs. Freesurfer in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Effect of Slice Thickness

Younghee Yim et al. Yonsei Med J. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the inter-method reliability and volumetric differences between NeuroQuant (NQ) and Freesurfer (FS) using T1 volume imaging sequence with different slice thicknesses in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Materials and methods: This retrospective study enrolled 80 patients diagnosed with MCI at our memory clinic. NQ and FS were used for volumetric analysis of three-dimensional T1-weighted images with slice thickness of 1 and 1.2 mm. Inter-method reliability was measured with Pearson correlation coefficient (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and effect size (ES).

Results: Overall, NQ volumes were larger than FS volumes in several locations: whole brain (0.78%), cortical gray matter (5.34%), and white matter (2.68%). Volume measures by NQ and FS showed good-to-excellent ICCs with both 1 and 1.2 mm slice thickness (ICC=0.75-0.97, ES=-1.0-0.73 vs. ICC=0.78-0.96, ES=-0.9-0.77, respectively), except for putamen, pallidum, thalamus, and total intracranial volumes. The ICCs in all locations, except the putamen and cerebellum, were slightly higher with a slice thickness of 1 mm compared to those of 1.2 mm.

Conclusion: Inter-method reliability between NQ and FS was good-to-excellent in most regions with improvement with a 1-mm slice thickness. This finding indicates that the potential effects of slice thickness should be considered when performing volumetric measurements for cognitive impairment.

Keywords: Brain volume; FreeSurfer; NeuroQuant; mild cognitive impairment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Scatterplot showing the correlation between NQ and FS. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between volume measurements obtained by NQ and FS. There was a strong positive correlation between the two variables; r=0.988, n=80, 95% CI: 0.986–0.989, p<0.001. NQ, NeuroQuant; FS, Freesurfer.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Percentages of volumes measured by NQ and FS, (NQ–FS)/FS×100%. NQ, NeuroQuant; FS, Freesurfer.

References

    1. Brewer JB, Magda S, Airriess C, Smith ME. Fully-automated quantification of regional brain volumes for improved detection of focal atrophy in Alzheimer disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:578–580. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Braak H, Braak E. Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol. 1991;82:239–259. - PubMed
    1. Jack CR, Jr, Petersen RC, Xu YC, Waring SC, O'brien PC, Tangalos EG, et al. Medial temporal atrophy on MRI in normal aging and very mild Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1997;49:786–794. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Park M, Moon WJ. Structural MR imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative dementia: current imaging approach and future perspectives. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17:827–845. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Min J, Moon WJ, Jeon JY, Choi JW, Moon YS, Han SH. Diagnostic efficacy of structural MRI in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease: automated volumetric assessment versus visual assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:617–623. - PubMed

Publication types