Dataset Information

Test-retest reliability of freesurfer measurements within and between sites: Effects of visual approval process.

ABSTRACT: In the last decade, many studies have used automated processes to analyze magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data such as cortical thickness, which is one indicator of neuronal health. Due to the convenience of image processing software (e.g., FreeSurfer), standard practice is to rely on automated results without performing visual inspection of intermediate processing. In this work, structural MRIs of 40 healthy controls who were scanned twice were used to determine the test-retest reliability of FreeSurfer-derived cortical measures in four groups of subjects-those 25 that passed visual inspection (approved), those 15 that failed visual inspection (disapproved), a combined group, and a subset of 10 subjects (Travel) whose test and retest scans occurred at different sites. Test-retest correlation (TRC), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and percent difference (PD) were used to measure the reliability in the Destrieux and Desikan-Killiany (DK) atlases. In the approved subjects, reliability of cortical thickness/surface area/volume (DK atlas only) were: TRC (0.82/0.88/0.88), ICC (0.81/0.87/0.88), PD (0.86/1.19/1.39), which represent a significant improvement over these measures when disapproved subjects are included. Travel subjects' results show that cortical thickness reliability is more sensitive to site differences than the cortical surface area and volume. To determine the effect of visual inspection on sample size required for studies of MRI-derived cortical thickness, the number of subjects required to show group differences was calculated. Significant differences observed across imaging sites, between visually approved/disapproved subjects, and across regions with different sizes suggest that these measures should be used with caution.

SUBMITTER: Iscan Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4545736 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe recently developed Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool aims to measure aspects of the local healthcare context perceived to influence knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries. The tool measures eight dimensions (organizational resources, community engagement, monitoring services for action, sources of knowledge, commitment to work, work culture, leadership, and informal payment) through 49 items.ObjectiveThe study aimed to explore the understanding and stability of the COACH tool among health providers in Vietnam.DesignsTo investigate the response process, think-aloud interviews were undertaken with five community health workers, six nurses and midwives, and five physicians. Identified problems were classified according to Conrad and Blair's taxonomy and grouped according to an estimation of the magnitude of the problem's effect on the response data. Further, the stability of the tool was examined using a test-retest survey among 77 respondents. The reliability was analyzed for items (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and percent agreement) and dimensions (ICC and Bland-Altman plots).ResultsIn general, the think-aloud interviews revealed that the COACH tool was perceived as clear, well organized, and easy to answer. Most items were understood as intended. However, seven prominent problems in the items were identified and the content of three dimensions was perceived to be of a sensitive nature. In the test-retest survey, two-thirds of the items and seven of eight dimensions were found to have an ICC agreement ranging from moderate to substantial (0.5-0.7), demonstrating that the instrument has an acceptable level of stability.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that the Vietnamese translation of the COACH tool is generally perceived to be clear and easy to understand and has acceptable stability. There is, however, a need to rephrase and add generic examples to clarify some items and to further review items with low ICC.

Project description:BackgroundNeurocognitive testing is an important concussion evaluation tool, but for neurocognitive tests to be useful, their psychometric properties must be well established. Test-retest reliability of computerized neurocognitive tests can influence their clinical utility. The reliability for a commonly used computerized neurocognitive test, CNS Vital Signs, is not well established. The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and reliable change indices for CNS Vital Signs in a healthy, physically active college population.HypothesisCNS Vital Signs yields acceptable test-retest reliability, with greater reliability between the second and third test administration compared with between the first and second administration.Study designCohort study.Level of evidenceLevel 3.MethodsForty healthy, active volunteers (16 men, 24 women; mean age, 21.05 ± 2.17 years) reported to a clinical laboratory for 3 sessions, 1 week apart. At each session, participants were administered CNS Vital Signs. Outcomes included standard scores for the following CNS Vital Signs domains: verbal memory, visual memory, psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, complex attention, processing speed, reaction time, executive functioning, and reasoning.ResultsParticipants performed significantly better on the second session and/or third session than they did on the first testing session on 6 of 9 neurocognitive domains. Pearson r test-retest correlations between sessions ranged from 0.11 to 0.87. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.10 to 0.86.ConclusionClinicians should consider using reliable change indices to account for practice effects, identify meaningful score changes due to pathology, and inform clinical decisions.Clinical relevanceThis study highlights the importance of clinicians understanding the psychometric properties of computerized neurocognitive tests when using them in the management of sport-related concussion. If CNS Vital Signs is administered twice within a small time frame (such as 1 week), athletes should be expected to improve between the first and second administration.

Dataset Information

Test-retest reliability of freesurfer measurements within and between sites: Effects of visual approval process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets