Reliability and validity of MRI-based automated volumetry software relative to auto-assisted manual measurement of subcortical structures in HIV-infected patients from a multisite study

Citation:

Jeffrey Dewey, George Hana, Troy Russell, Jared Price, Daniel McCaffrey, Jaroslaw Harezlak, Ekta Sem, Joy C Anyanwu, Charles R Guttmann, Bradford Navia, Ronald Cohen, and David F Tate. 2010. “Reliability and validity of MRI-based automated volumetry software relative to auto-assisted manual measurement of subcortical structures in HIV-infected patients from a multisite study.” Neuroimage, 51, 4, Pp. 1334-44.

Abstract:

The automated volumetric output of FreeSurfer and Individual Brain Atlases using Statistical Parametric Mapping (IBASPM), two widely used and well published software packages, was examined for accuracy and consistency relative to auto-assisted manual (AAM) tracings (i.e., manual correction of automated output) when measuring the caudate, putamen, amygdala, and hippocampus in the baseline scans of 120 HIV-infected patients (86.7% male, 47.3+/-6.3y.o., mean HIV duration 12.0+/-6.3years) from the NIH-funded HIV Neuroimaging Consortium (HIVNC) cohort. The data was examined for accuracy and consistency relative to auto-assisted manual tracing, and construct validity was assessed by correlating automated and AAM volumetric measures with relevant clinical measures of HIV progression. When results were averaged across all patients in the eight structures examined, FreeSurfer achieved lower absolute volume difference in five, higher sensitivity in seven, and higher spatial overlap in all eight structures. Additionally, FreeSurfer results exhibited less variability in all measures. Output from both methods identified discrepant correlations with clinical measures of HIV progression relative to AAM segmented data. Overall, FreeSurfer proved more effective in the context of subcortical volumetry in HIV-patients, particularly in a multisite cohort study such as this. These findings emphasize that regardless of the automated method used, visual inspection of segmentation output, along with manual correction if necessary, remains critical to ensuring the validity of reported results.