↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Error in Hippocampal Volume Asymmetry Measurement is Minimal with a Manual Segmentation Protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic Error in Hippocampal Volume Asymmetry Measurement is Minimal with a Manual Segmentation Protocol
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baxter P. Rogers, Julia M. Sheffield, Andrew S. Luksik, Stephan Heckers

Abstract

Hemispheric asymmetry of hippocampal volume is a common finding that has biological relevance, including associations with dementia and cognitive performance. However, a recent study has reported the possibility of systematic error in measurements of hippocampal asymmetry by magnetic resonance volumetry. We manually traced the volumes of the anterior and posterior hippocampus in 40 healthy people to measure systematic error related to image orientation. We found a bias due to the side of the screen on which the hippocampus was viewed, such that hippocampal volume was larger when traced on the left side of the screen than when traced on the right (p = 0.05). However, this bias was smaller than the anatomical right > left asymmetry of the anterior hippocampus. We found right > left asymmetry of hippocampal volume regardless of image presentation (radiological versus neurological). We conclude that manual segmentation protocols can minimize the effect of image orientation in the study of hippocampal volume asymmetry, but our confirmation that such bias exists suggests strategies to avoid it in future studies.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 34 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 36%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 26%
Engineering 6 15%
Psychology 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2012.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,137
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,486
of 250,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#140
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.