1naresh<pre>Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh<pre>Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => FreeToRead
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Comparison of Global Brain Volumetrics Obtained from CT versus MRI Using 2 Publicly Available Software Packages
JF American Journal of Neuroradiology
JO Am. J. Neuroradiol.
FD American Society of Neuroradiology
SP 245
OP 250
DO 10.3174/ajnr.A7403
VO 43
IS 2
A1 Fielden, S.W.
A1 Beiler, D.
A1 Cauley, K.A.
A1 Troiani, V.
YR 2022
UL http://www.ajnr.org/content/43/2/245.abstract
AB BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brain volumetrics have historically been obtained from MR imaging data. However, advances in CT, along with refined publicly available software packages, may support tissue-level segmentations of clinical CT images. Here, brain volumetrics obtained by applying two publicly available software packages to paired CT-MR data are compared.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a group of patients (n = 69; 35 men) who underwent both MR imaging and CT brain scans within 12 months of one another, brain tissue was segmented into WM, GM, and CSF compartments using 2 publicly available software packages: Statistical Parametric Mapping and FMRIB Software Library. A subset of patients with repeat imaging sessions was used to assess the repeatability of each segmentation. Regression analysis and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to determine the level of agreement between segmented volumes.RESULTS: Regression analysis showed good agreement between volumes derived from MR images versus those from CT. The correlation coefficients between the 2 methods were 0.93 and 0.98 for Statistical Parametric Mapping and FMRIB Software Library, respectively. Differences between global volumes were significant (P &lt; .05) for all volumes compared within a given segmentation pipeline. WM bias was 36% (SD, 38%) and 18% (SD, 18%) for Statistical Parametric Mapping and FMRIB Software Library, respectively, and 10% (SD, 30%) and 6% (SD, 20%) for GM (bias ± limits of agreement), with CT overestimating WM and underestimating GM compared with MR imaging. Repeatability was good for all segmentations, with coefficients of variation of &lt;10% for all volumes.CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of CT segmentations using publicly available software is good, with good correlation with MR imaging. With careful study design and acknowledgment of measurement biases, CT may be a viable alternative to MR imaging in certain settings.BVbrain volumeCNRcontrast-to-noise ratioDARTELDiffeomorphic Anatomical Registration Through Exponentiated Lie AlgebraICVintercranial volumeLoAlimits of agreementSPMStatistical Parametric Mapping