Validation of hippocampal volumes measured using a manual method and two automated methods (FreeSurfer and IBASPM) in chronic major depressive disorder
- 1.6k Downloads
To validate the usefulness of the packages available for automated hippocampal volumetry, we measured hippocampal volumes using one manual and two recently developed automated volumetric methods.
The study included T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of 21 patients with chronic major depressive disorder (MDD) and 20 normal controls. Using coronal turbo field echo (TFE) MRI with a slice thickness of 1.3 mm, the hippocampal volumes were measured using three methods: manual volumetry, surface-based parcellation using FreeSurfer, and individual atlas-based volumetry using IBASPM. In addition, the intracranial cavity volume (ICV) was measured manually.
The absolute left hippocampal volume of the patients with MDD measured using all three methods was significantly smaller than the left hippocampal volume of the normal controls (manual P = 0.029, FreeSurfer P = 0.035, IBASPM P = 0.018). After controlling for the ICV, except for the right hippocampal volume measured using FreeSurfer, both measured hippocampal volumes of the patients with MDD were significantly smaller than the measured hippocampal volumes of the normal controls (right manual P = 0.019, IBASPM P = 0.012; left manual P = 0.003, FreeSurfer P = 0.010, IBASPM P = 0.002),. In the intrarater reliability test, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were all excellent (manual right 0.947, left 0.934; FreeSurfer right 1.000, left 1.000; IBASPM right 1.000, left 1.000). In the test of agreement between the volumetric methods, the ICCs were right 0.846 and left 0.848 (manual and FreeSurfer), and right 0.654 and left 0.717 (manual and IBASPM).
The automated hippocampal volumetric methods showed good agreement with manual hippocampal volumetry, but the volume measured using FreeSurfer was 35% larger and the agreement was questionable with IBASPM. Although the automated methods could detect hippocampal atrophy in the patients with MDD, the results indicate that manual hippocampal volumetry is still the gold standard, while the automated volumetric methods need to be improved.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Hippocampus Volumetry Validation Major depressive disorder
This study was supported by a research grant from Kangwon National University Hospital.
Conflict of interest statement
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Alemán-Gómez Y, Melie-García L, Valdés-Hernandez P (2006) IBASPM: toolbox for automatic parcellation of brain structures. Presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, 11–15 June 2006, Florence, Italy. Available on CD-Rom in NeuroImage, vol. 27, no. 1Google Scholar
- 5.Chupin M, Mukuna-Bantumbakulu AR, Hasboun D, Bardinet E, Baillet S, Kinkingnehun S, Lemieux L, Dubois B, Garnero L (2007) Anatomically constrained region deformation for the automated segmentation of the hippocampus and the amygdala: method and validation on controls and patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage 34:996–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Fischl B, Salat DH, Busa E, Albert M, Dieterich M, Haselgrove C, van der Kouwe A, Killiany R, Kennedy D, Klaveness S, Montillo A, Makris N, Rosen B, Dale AM (2002) Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 33:341–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Grundman M, Sencakova D, Jack CR Jr, Petersen RC, Kim HT, Schultz A, Weiner MF, DeCarli C, DeKosky ST, van Dyck C, Thomas RG, Thal LJ (2002) Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study: brain MRI hippocampal volume and prediction of clinical status in a mild cognitive impairment trial. J Mol Neurosci 19:23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Duvernoy HM (1991) The human brain: surface, three-dimensional sectional anatomy, and MRI. Springer-Verlag, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
- 39.Pitman EJG (1939) A note on normal correlation. Biometrica 31:9–12Google Scholar