IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0117692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Popular Cortical Thickness Extraction Algorithms: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Redolfi
  • David Manset
  • Frederik Barkhof
  • Lars-Olof Wahlund
  • Tristan Glatard
  • Jean-François Mangin
  • Giovanni B Frisoni
  • neuGRID Consortium, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The measurement of cortical shrinkage is a candidate marker of disease progression in Alzheimer’s. This study evaluated the performance of two pipelines: Civet-CLASP (v1.1.9) and Freesurfer (v5.3.0). Methods: Images from 185 ADNI1 cases (69 elderly controls (CTR), 37 stable MCI (sMCI), 27 progressive MCI (pMCI), and 52 Alzheimer (AD) patients) scanned at baseline, month 12, and month 24 were processed using the two pipelines and two interconnected e-infrastructures: neuGRID (https://neugrid4you.eu) and VIP (http://vip.creatis.insa-lyon.fr). The vertex-by-vertex cross-algorithm comparison was made possible applying the 3D gradient vector flow (GVF) and closest point search (CPS) techniques. Results: The cortical thickness measured with Freesurfer was systematically lower by one third if compared to Civet’s. Cross-sectionally, Freesurfer’s effect size was significantly different in the posterior division of the temporal fusiform cortex. Both pipelines were weakly or mildly correlated with the Mini Mental State Examination score (MMSE) and the hippocampal volumetry. Civet differed significantly from Freesurfer in large frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital regions (p

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Redolfi & David Manset & Frederik Barkhof & Lars-Olof Wahlund & Tristan Glatard & Jean-François Mangin & Giovanni B Frisoni & neuGRID Consortium, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initi, 2015. "Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Popular Cortical Thickness Extraction Algorithms: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0117692
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117692
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117692&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0117692?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0117692. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.