Subcortical volumes are a promising source of biomarkers and features in biosignatures, and automated methods facilitate extracting them in large, phenotypically rich datasets. However, while extensive research has verified that the automated methods produce volumes that are similar to those generated by expert annotation, the consistency of methods with each other is understudied. Using data from the UK Biobank, we compare the estimates of subcortical volumes produced by two popular software suites: FSL and FreeSurfer. Although most subcortical volumes exhibit good to excellent consistency across the methods, the tools produce diverging estimates of amygdalar volume. Through simulation, we show that this poor consistency can lead to conflicting results, where one but not the other tool suggests statistical significance, or where both tools suggest a significant relationship but in opposite directions. Considering these issues, we discuss several ways in which care should be taken when reporting on relationships involving amygdalar volume.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11244866PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.07.583900DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

subcortical volumes
12
fsl freesurfer
8
poor consistency
8
automated methods
8
consistency methods
8
amygdalar volume
8
methods
5
volumes
5
comparing automated
4
subcortical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!