Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease
Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combine...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging 2016-06, Vol.252, p.26-35 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 35 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 26 |
container_title | Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging |
container_volume | 252 |
creator | Cover, Keith S van Schijndel, Ronald A Versteeg, Adriaan Leung, Kelvin K Mulder, Emma R Jong, Remko A Visser, Peter J Redolfi, Alberto Revillard, Jerome Grenier, Baptiste Manset, David Damangir, Soheil Bosco, Paolo Vrenken, Hugo van Dijk, Bob W Frisoni, Giovanni B Barkhof, Frederik |
description | Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combined with the boundary shift integral (MAPS-HBSI) were calculated. Back-to-back (BTB) 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1) study at baseline and year one were used. Analysis on 3 groups of subjects was performed – 562 subjects at 1.5 T, a 75 subject group that also had manual segmentation and 111 subjects at 3 T. A simple and novel statistical test based on the binomial distribution was used that handled outlying data points robustly. Median hippocampal atrophy rates were −1.1% /year for healthy controls, −3.0%/year for mildly cognitively impaired and −5.1% /year for AD subjects. The best reproducibility was observed for MAPS-HBSI (1.3%), while the other methods tested had reproducibilities at least 50% higher at 1.5 T and 3 T which was statistically significant. For a clinical trial, MAPS-HBSI should require less than half the subjects of the other methods tested. All methods had good accuracy versus manual segmentation. The MAPS-HBSI method has substantially better reproducibility than the other methods considered. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.04.006 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_505213</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0925492716300968</els_id><sourcerecordid>1808613531</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-8296c1a771c97a3a0f8d4fa56bf6154dead008c879449588c9ce0eef4bfede5a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNktFu0zAUhiMEYt3gFZC5gouls-PYiW-QuoqySkWgZVxbrn2iuEviYCdM3WvwwrhqmRA3cGXr6Dv_Ofr_kyRvCZ4TTPjVbj4EvdeNh9CHeRZLc5zPMebPkhkpiywtGObPkxkWGUtzkRVnyXkIO4wzWnL6MjnLClIISugs-XkLg3dm0nZrWzvukatRY4fBadUNqkVq9G5o9sirEQLqQIXJg0EPdmxQp_pJtZdo5QGqydfgL9HCqGvnwhir1eZqtb6t7pDqDRobQJ8XX6v05rpaR52xcSYg26NF-9iA7cC_C8jYEAfAq-RFrdoAr0_vRfJt9fFueZNuvnxaLxebVDOWj2mZCa6JKgqiRaGownVp8loxvq05YbkBZTAudVmIPBesLLXQgAHqfFuDAaboRZIedcMDDNNWDt52yu-lU1aeSvfxB5JhlhEa-fdHPjr2fYIwys4GDW2renBTkKTEJSeURWP_iUb7BeY5LSIqjqj2LgQP9dMeBMtD3HIn_4hbHuKWOJcx7tj75jRm2nZgnjp_5xuB5RGA6OMPC14GbaHXYKwHPUrj7H-N-fCXim5tb7Vq72EPYecm38egJJEhk1hWh7s7nB3hFGPBS_oLtzDYgg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1793906437</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><creator>Cover, Keith S ; van Schijndel, Ronald A ; Versteeg, Adriaan ; Leung, Kelvin K ; Mulder, Emma R ; Jong, Remko A ; Visser, Peter J ; Redolfi, Alberto ; Revillard, Jerome ; Grenier, Baptiste ; Manset, David ; Damangir, Soheil ; Bosco, Paolo ; Vrenken, Hugo ; van Dijk, Bob W ; Frisoni, Giovanni B ; Barkhof, Frederik</creator><creatorcontrib>Cover, Keith S ; van Schijndel, Ronald A ; Versteeg, Adriaan ; Leung, Kelvin K ; Mulder, Emma R ; Jong, Remko A ; Visser, Peter J ; Redolfi, Alberto ; Revillard, Jerome ; Grenier, Baptiste ; Manset, David ; Damangir, Soheil ; Bosco, Paolo ; Vrenken, Hugo ; van Dijk, Bob W ; Frisoni, Giovanni B ; Barkhof, Frederik ; for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combined with the boundary shift integral (MAPS-HBSI) were calculated. Back-to-back (BTB) 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1) study at baseline and year one were used. Analysis on 3 groups of subjects was performed – 562 subjects at 1.5 T, a 75 subject group that also had manual segmentation and 111 subjects at 3 T. A simple and novel statistical test based on the binomial distribution was used that handled outlying data points robustly. Median hippocampal atrophy rates were −1.1% /year for healthy controls, −3.0%/year for mildly cognitively impaired and −5.1% /year for AD subjects. The best reproducibility was observed for MAPS-HBSI (1.3%), while the other methods tested had reproducibilities at least 50% higher at 1.5 T and 3 T which was statistically significant. For a clinical trial, MAPS-HBSI should require less than half the subjects of the other methods tested. All methods had good accuracy versus manual segmentation. The MAPS-HBSI method has substantially better reproducibility than the other methods considered.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0925-4927</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7506</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.04.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27179313</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Aged ; Algorithms ; Alzheimer disease ; Alzheimer Disease - diagnostic imaging ; Alzheimer Disease - pathology ; Atrophy ; Atrophy - diagnostic imaging ; Atrophy - pathology ; Automatic segmentation ; Boundary shift integral ; Female ; Hippocampus ; Hippocampus - diagnostic imaging ; Hippocampus - pathology ; Humans ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Male ; Manual segmentation ; Mild cognitive impairment ; Neuroimaging - methods ; Psychiatry ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results</subject><ispartof>Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging, 2016-06, Vol.252, p.26-35</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-8296c1a771c97a3a0f8d4fa56bf6154dead008c879449588c9ce0eef4bfede5a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-8296c1a771c97a3a0f8d4fa56bf6154dead008c879449588c9ce0eef4bfede5a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925492716300968$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,550,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179313$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:133727292$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cover, Keith S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Schijndel, Ronald A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Versteeg, Adriaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, Kelvin K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulder, Emma R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jong, Remko A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Visser, Peter J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Redolfi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Revillard, Jerome</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grenier, Baptiste</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manset, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Damangir, Soheil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosco, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrenken, Hugo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Dijk, Bob W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frisoni, Giovanni B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barkhof, Frederik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</creatorcontrib><title>Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease</title><title>Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging</title><addtitle>Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging</addtitle><description>Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combined with the boundary shift integral (MAPS-HBSI) were calculated. Back-to-back (BTB) 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1) study at baseline and year one were used. Analysis on 3 groups of subjects was performed – 562 subjects at 1.5 T, a 75 subject group that also had manual segmentation and 111 subjects at 3 T. A simple and novel statistical test based on the binomial distribution was used that handled outlying data points robustly. Median hippocampal atrophy rates were −1.1% /year for healthy controls, −3.0%/year for mildly cognitively impaired and −5.1% /year for AD subjects. The best reproducibility was observed for MAPS-HBSI (1.3%), while the other methods tested had reproducibilities at least 50% higher at 1.5 T and 3 T which was statistically significant. For a clinical trial, MAPS-HBSI should require less than half the subjects of the other methods tested. All methods had good accuracy versus manual segmentation. The MAPS-HBSI method has substantially better reproducibility than the other methods considered.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Alzheimer disease</subject><subject>Alzheimer Disease - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Alzheimer Disease - pathology</subject><subject>Atrophy</subject><subject>Atrophy - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Atrophy - pathology</subject><subject>Automatic segmentation</subject><subject>Boundary shift integral</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hippocampus</subject><subject>Hippocampus - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Hippocampus - pathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manual segmentation</subject><subject>Mild cognitive impairment</subject><subject>Neuroimaging - methods</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><issn>0925-4927</issn><issn>1872-7506</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNqNktFu0zAUhiMEYt3gFZC5gouls-PYiW-QuoqySkWgZVxbrn2iuEviYCdM3WvwwrhqmRA3cGXr6Dv_Ofr_kyRvCZ4TTPjVbj4EvdeNh9CHeRZLc5zPMebPkhkpiywtGObPkxkWGUtzkRVnyXkIO4wzWnL6MjnLClIISugs-XkLg3dm0nZrWzvukatRY4fBadUNqkVq9G5o9sirEQLqQIXJg0EPdmxQp_pJtZdo5QGqydfgL9HCqGvnwhir1eZqtb6t7pDqDRobQJ8XX6v05rpaR52xcSYg26NF-9iA7cC_C8jYEAfAq-RFrdoAr0_vRfJt9fFueZNuvnxaLxebVDOWj2mZCa6JKgqiRaGownVp8loxvq05YbkBZTAudVmIPBesLLXQgAHqfFuDAaboRZIedcMDDNNWDt52yu-lU1aeSvfxB5JhlhEa-fdHPjr2fYIwys4GDW2renBTkKTEJSeURWP_iUb7BeY5LSIqjqj2LgQP9dMeBMtD3HIn_4hbHuKWOJcx7tj75jRm2nZgnjp_5xuB5RGA6OMPC14GbaHXYKwHPUrj7H-N-fCXim5tb7Vq72EPYecm38egJJEhk1hWh7s7nB3hFGPBS_oLtzDYgg</recordid><startdate>20160630</startdate><enddate>20160630</enddate><creator>Cover, Keith S</creator><creator>van Schijndel, Ronald A</creator><creator>Versteeg, Adriaan</creator><creator>Leung, Kelvin K</creator><creator>Mulder, Emma R</creator><creator>Jong, Remko A</creator><creator>Visser, Peter J</creator><creator>Redolfi, Alberto</creator><creator>Revillard, Jerome</creator><creator>Grenier, Baptiste</creator><creator>Manset, David</creator><creator>Damangir, Soheil</creator><creator>Bosco, Paolo</creator><creator>Vrenken, Hugo</creator><creator>van Dijk, Bob W</creator><creator>Frisoni, Giovanni B</creator><creator>Barkhof, Frederik</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160630</creationdate><title>Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease</title><author>Cover, Keith S ; van Schijndel, Ronald A ; Versteeg, Adriaan ; Leung, Kelvin K ; Mulder, Emma R ; Jong, Remko A ; Visser, Peter J ; Redolfi, Alberto ; Revillard, Jerome ; Grenier, Baptiste ; Manset, David ; Damangir, Soheil ; Bosco, Paolo ; Vrenken, Hugo ; van Dijk, Bob W ; Frisoni, Giovanni B ; Barkhof, Frederik</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-8296c1a771c97a3a0f8d4fa56bf6154dead008c879449588c9ce0eef4bfede5a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Alzheimer disease</topic><topic>Alzheimer Disease - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Alzheimer Disease - pathology</topic><topic>Atrophy</topic><topic>Atrophy - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Atrophy - pathology</topic><topic>Automatic segmentation</topic><topic>Boundary shift integral</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hippocampus</topic><topic>Hippocampus - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Hippocampus - pathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manual segmentation</topic><topic>Mild cognitive impairment</topic><topic>Neuroimaging - methods</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cover, Keith S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Schijndel, Ronald A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Versteeg, Adriaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, Kelvin K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulder, Emma R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jong, Remko A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Visser, Peter J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Redolfi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Revillard, Jerome</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grenier, Baptiste</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manset, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Damangir, Soheil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosco, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrenken, Hugo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Dijk, Bob W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frisoni, Giovanni B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barkhof, Frederik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cover, Keith S</au><au>van Schijndel, Ronald A</au><au>Versteeg, Adriaan</au><au>Leung, Kelvin K</au><au>Mulder, Emma R</au><au>Jong, Remko A</au><au>Visser, Peter J</au><au>Redolfi, Alberto</au><au>Revillard, Jerome</au><au>Grenier, Baptiste</au><au>Manset, David</au><au>Damangir, Soheil</au><au>Bosco, Paolo</au><au>Vrenken, Hugo</au><au>van Dijk, Bob W</au><au>Frisoni, Giovanni B</au><au>Barkhof, Frederik</au><aucorp>for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</aucorp><aucorp>Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, neuGRID</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease</atitle><jtitle>Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging</jtitle><addtitle>Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging</addtitle><date>2016-06-30</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>252</volume><spage>26</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>26-35</pages><issn>0925-4927</issn><eissn>1872-7506</eissn><abstract>Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combined with the boundary shift integral (MAPS-HBSI) were calculated. Back-to-back (BTB) 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1) study at baseline and year one were used. Analysis on 3 groups of subjects was performed – 562 subjects at 1.5 T, a 75 subject group that also had manual segmentation and 111 subjects at 3 T. A simple and novel statistical test based on the binomial distribution was used that handled outlying data points robustly. Median hippocampal atrophy rates were −1.1% /year for healthy controls, −3.0%/year for mildly cognitively impaired and −5.1% /year for AD subjects. The best reproducibility was observed for MAPS-HBSI (1.3%), while the other methods tested had reproducibilities at least 50% higher at 1.5 T and 3 T which was statistically significant. For a clinical trial, MAPS-HBSI should require less than half the subjects of the other methods tested. All methods had good accuracy versus manual segmentation. The MAPS-HBSI method has substantially better reproducibility than the other methods considered.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>27179313</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.04.006</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0925-4927 |
ispartof | Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging, 2016-06, Vol.252, p.26-35 |
issn | 0925-4927 1872-7506 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_505213 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; SWEPUB Freely available online |
subjects | Aged Algorithms Alzheimer disease Alzheimer Disease - diagnostic imaging Alzheimer Disease - pathology Atrophy Atrophy - diagnostic imaging Atrophy - pathology Automatic segmentation Boundary shift integral Female Hippocampus Hippocampus - diagnostic imaging Hippocampus - pathology Humans Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Male Manual segmentation Mild cognitive impairment Neuroimaging - methods Psychiatry Radiology Reproducibility of Results |
title | Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T00%3A27%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reproducibility%20of%20hippocampal%20atrophy%20rates%20measured%20with%20manual,%20FreeSurfer,%20AdaBoost,%20FSL/FIRST%20and%20the%20MAPS-HBSI%20methods%20in%20Alzheimer's%20disease&rft.jtitle=Psychiatry%20research.%20Neuroimaging&rft.au=Cover,%20Keith%20S&rft.aucorp=for%20the%20Alzheimer's%20Disease%20Neuroimaging%20Initiative,%20neuGRID&rft.date=2016-06-30&rft.volume=252&rft.spage=26&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=26-35&rft.issn=0925-4927&rft.eissn=1872-7506&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.04.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E1808613531%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1793906437&rft_id=info:pmid/27179313&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0925492716300968&rfr_iscdi=true |