Abstract
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 within-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 intermethod 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.