2022
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25978
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of intracranial volume estimation methods and their cross‐sectional and longitudinal associations with age

Abstract: Intracranial volume (ICV) is frequently used in volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, both as a covariate and as a variable of interest. Findings of associations between ICV and age have varied, potentially due to differences in ICV estimation methods. Here, we compared five commonly used ICV estimation methods and their associations with age. T1‐weighted cross‐sectional MRI data was included for 651 healthy individuals recruited through the NORMENT Centre (mean age = 46.1 years, range = 12.0–85… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Covariates included in the models were age, gender, medications, Townsend deprivation index, total brain volume (TBV), BMI, height, ethnicity, smoking status, alcoholic drinking status, and the first ten genetic principal components. Additionally, we tested the models without the adjustment of TBV since TBV decreases with aging ( 52 ). Significant group differences were found in the bilateral hippocampus, regardless of whether TBV was included as a covariate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Covariates included in the models were age, gender, medications, Townsend deprivation index, total brain volume (TBV), BMI, height, ethnicity, smoking status, alcoholic drinking status, and the first ten genetic principal components. Additionally, we tested the models without the adjustment of TBV since TBV decreases with aging ( 52 ). Significant group differences were found in the bilateral hippocampus, regardless of whether TBV was included as a covariate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The agreement between head size normalization estimates were analyzed by performing linear regression analyses. SAMSEG T1 sbTIV was chosen as the reference method based on previous work (see methods) [ 28 ]. The R 2 between SAMSEG T1 sbTIV and SAMSEG FLAIR sbTIV was 0.95 (β = 0.99, se = 0.011), 0.95 for SynthSeg FLAIR sbTIV (β = 0.99, se = 0.011) and 0.96 for SynthSeg T1 sbTIV (β = 0.98, se = 0.011) (see Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, FreeSurfer-based reference volumes were normalized by the segmentation-based intracranial volume (sbTIV) from the SAMSEG processing stream. sbTIV is proposed as a more robust alternative by FreeSurfer and is less sensitive to brain atrophy [ 28 ]. The volumes of all SAMSEG and SynthSeg-derived segmentations were normalized by dividing by the sbTIV of the corresponding pipeline.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We found no evidence for larger volumes in healthy female controls as compared to males for any of the subfields. However, it should be noted that sex differences in neuroanatomical structure may be dependent on ICV estimation 45 and choice of statistical method for adjusting for ICV [46][47][48] . Here, we estimated ICV as estimated total ICV via Freesurfer v6.0.0 and used the ANCOVA method, which has been shown to more effectively remove ICV-related variation than the proportions method 46 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%