Evaluation of reproducibility of brain volumetry between commercial software, inbrain and established research purpose method, freesurfer

Background and Purpose We aimed to determine the intermethod reproducibility between the commercial software Inbrain (MIDAS IT) and the established research-purpose method FreeSurfer, as well as the effect of MRI resolution and the pathological condition of subjects on their intermethod reproducibility. Methods This study included 45 healthy volunteers and 85 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In 43 of the 85 patients with MCI, three-dimensional, T1-weighted MRI data were obtained at an in-plane resolution of 1.2 mm. The data of the remaining 42 patients with MCI and the healthy volunteers were obtained at an in-plane resolution of 1.0 mm. The with-in-subject coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and effect size were calculated, and means were compared using paired t-tests. The parameters obtained at 1.0-mm and 1.2-mm resolutions in patients with MCI were compared to evaluate the effect of the in-plane resolution on the intermethod reproducibility. The parameters obtained at a 1.0-mm in-plane resolution in patients with MCI and healthy volunteers were used to analyze the effect of subject condition on intermethod reproducibility. Results Overall the two methods showed excellent reproducibility across all regions of the brain (CoV=0.5–3.9, ICC=0.93 to >0.99). In the subgroup of healthy volunteers, the inter-method reliability was only good in some regions (frontal, temporal, cingulate, and insular). The intermethod reproducibility was better in the 1.0-mm group than the 1.2-mm group in all regions other than the nucleus accumbens. Conclusions Inbrain and FreeSurfer showed good-to-excellent intermethod reproducibility for volumetric measurements. Nevertheless, some noticeable differences were found based on subject condition, image resolution, and brain region.