Intracranial volume estimated with commonly used methods could introduce bias in studies including brain volume measurements

Abstract

In brain volumetric studies, intracranial volume (ICV) is often used as an estimate of pre-morbid brain size as well as to compensate for inter-subject variations in head size. However, if the estimated ICV is biased by for example gender or atrophy, it could introduce errors in study results. To evaluate how two commonly used methods for ICV estimation perform, computer assisted reference segmentations were created and evaluated. Segmentations were created for 399 MRI volumes from 75-year-old subjects, with 53 of these subjects having an additional scan and segmentation created at age 80. ICV estimates from Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM, version 8) and Freesurfer (FS, version 5.1.0) were compared to the reference segmentations, and bias related to skull size (approximated with the segmentation measure), gender or atrophy were tested for. The possible ICV related effect on associations between normalized hippocampal volume and factors gender, education and cognition was evaluated by normalizing hippocampal volume with different ICV measures. Excellent agreement was seen for inter- (r=0.999) and intra- (r=0.999) operator reference segmentations. Both SPM and FS overestimated ICV. SPM showed bias associated with gender and atrophy while FS showed bias dependent on skull size. All methods showed good correlation between time points in the longitudinal data (reference: 0.998, SPM: 0.962, FS: 0.995). Hippocampal volume showed different associations with cognition and gender depending on which ICV measure was used for hippocampal volume normalization. These results show that the choice of method used for ICV estimation can bias results in studies including brain volume measurements.

MR Imaging in Spinocerebellar Ataxias: A Systematic Review

“…9 Some minor differences in the results across studies might be related to technical differences between semiautomated and automated analyses and differences between VBM and surface analysis (FreeSurfer). [35][36][37] Although several volumetric analyses have been published, the use of at least 3 technical approaches, the heterogeneity of comparisons with independent variables (CAG exp , disease duration, ataxia scales, and so forth), and the way data are presented in VBM studies prevented any data meta-analysis. On a prospective study, the main gray matter changes in the SCA3/MJD group were in the whole brain stem, pons, putamen, and caudate.…”

The Intracranial and Posterior Cranial Fossa Volumes and Volume Fractions in Children: A Stereological Study

“…In one study; researchers used four groups including adult controls (AC), adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD), pediatric controls (PC) and group of pediatric epilepsy and FSL subjected to tuning are the more appropriate tools for the PC group (Sargolzaei et al, 2015). Although there are many studies to prove the accuracy of the automated methods, manual methods are still preferred (Pengas et al, 2009;Nordenskjöld et al, 2013). Many study demostrated that a stereologic technique (point counting) on CT scans may provide unbiased organ volume estimations and their results were similar to gold standard studies (Sahin et al; Nisari et al) One clinical study investigated ICV control (aged 172 ± 8 days and 10-486 days.)…”

How Does the Accuracy of Intracranial Volume Measurements Affect Normalized Brain Volumes? Sample Size Estimates Based on 966 Subjects from the HUNT MRI Cohort

“…This difference was shown in a recent study that compared statistics on normalized hippocampal volumes by using ICV estimates from FreeSurfer and SPM. 5 The method for normalizing the regional brain volumes with the ICV will affect how errors in the ICV measurements are propagated to the normalized volumes. Two of the most common normalization methods are the "ratio" method, which amounts to dividing the regional brain volumes by the ICV, and the "residual" method, which uses residuals from a linear regression between the volume of interest and the ICV, 6 but other techniques are also used.…”