How Does the Accuracy of Intracranial Volume Measurements Affect Normalized Brain Volumes? Sample Size Estimates Based on 966 Subjects from the HUNT MRI Cohort

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Barnes J,
   3. Ridgway GR,
   4. Bartlett J, et al

   . Head size, age and gender adjustment in MRI studies: a necessary nuisance? Neuroimage 2010;53:1244–55

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Davis PJ,
   3. Wright EA

   . A new method for measuring cranial cavity volume and its application to the assessment of cerebral atrophy at autopsy. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 1977;3:341–58

   CrossRefWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Buckner RL,
   3. Head D,
   4. Parker J, et al

   . A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume. Neuroimage 2004;23:724–38

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Keihaninejad S,
   3. Heckemann RA,
   4. Fagiolo G, et al

   . A robust method to estimate the intracranial volume across MRI field strengths (1.5T and 3T). Neuroimage 2010;50:1427–37

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Nordenskjöld R,
   3. Malmberg F,
   4. Larsson EM, et al

   . Intracranial volume estimated with commonly used methods could introduce bias in studies including brain volume measurements. Neuroimage 2013;83:355–60

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Jack R,
   3. Twomey K,
   4. Sharbrough FW, et al

   . Anterior temporal lobes and hippocampal formations: normative volumetric measurements from MR images in young adults. Radiology 1989;172:549–54

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Lehmann M,
   3. Douiri A,
   4. Kim LG, et al

   . Atrophy patterns in Alzheimer's disease and semantic dementia: a comparison of FreeSurfer and manual volumetric measurements. Neuroimage 2010;49:2264–74

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. O'Brien LM,
   3. Ziegler DA,
   4. Deutsch CK, et al

   . Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: some practical implications in methods. Psychiatry Res 2011;193:113–22

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Sanfilipo MP,
   3. Benedict RHB,
   4. Zivadinov R, et al

   . Correction for intracranial volume in analysis of whole brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: the proportion vs. residual method. Neuroimage 2004;22:1732–43

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Yushkevich PA,
    3. Piven J,
    4. Hazlett HC, et al

    . User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Whitwell JL,
    3. Crum WR,
    4. Watt HC, et al

    . Normalization of cerebral volumes by use of intracranial volume: implications for longitudinal quantitative MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1483–89

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Ashburner J,
    3. Friston KJ

    . Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005;26:839–51

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Weiskopf N,
    3. Lutti A,
    4. Helms G, et al

    . Unified segmentation based correction of R1 brain maps for RF transmit field inhomogeneities (UNICORT). Neuroimage 2011;54:2116–24

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Dice LR

    . Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 1945;26:297–302

    CrossRefWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Shrout PE,
    3. Fleiss JL

    . Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Fischl B,
    3. Salat DH,
    4. Busa E, et al

    . Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 2002;33:341–55

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Fischl B,
    3. Salat DH,
    4. van der Kouwe AJW, et al

    . Sequence-independent segmentation of magnetic resonance images. Neuroimage 2004;23(suppl 1):S69–84

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Smith RJ

    . Relative size versus controlling for size: interpretation of ratios in research on sexual dimorphism in the human corpus callosum. Current Anthropology 2005;46:249–73

    CrossRefWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Mathalon DH,
    3. Sullivan EV,
    4. Rawles JM, et al

    . Correction for head size in brain-imaging measurements. Psychiatry Res 1993;50:121–39

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Cohen J

    . A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155–59

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Fein G,
    3. Di Sclafani V,
    4. Taylor C, et al

    . Controlling for premorbid brain size in imaging studies: T1-derived cranium scaling factor vs. T2-derived intracranial vault volume. Psychiatry Res 2004;131:169–76

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Pengas G,
    3. Pereira JM,
    4. Williams GB, et al

    . Comparative reliability of total intracranial volume estimation methods and the influence of atrophy in a longitudinal semantic dementia cohort. J Neuroimaging 2009;19:37–46

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science