A Method to Estimate Brain Volume from Head CT Images and Application to Detect Brain Atrophy in Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Total brain volume and total intracranial volume are important measures for assessing whole-brain atrophy in Alzheimer disease, dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases. Unlike MR imaging, which has a number of well-validated fully-automated methods, only a handful of methods segment CT images. Available methods either use enhanced CT, do not estimate both volumes, or require formal validation. Reliable computation of total brain volume and total intracranial volume from CT is needed because head CTs are more widely used than head MRIs in the clinical setting. We present an automated head CT segmentation method (CTseg) to estimate total brain volume and total intracranial volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CTseg adapts a widely used brain MR imaging segmentation method from the Statistical Parametric Mapping toolbox using a CT-based template for initial registration. CTseg was tested and validated using head CT images from a clinical archive. RESULTS: CTseg showed excellent agreement with 20 manually segmented head CTs. The intraclass correlation was 0.97 (P < .001) for total intracranial volume and 0.94 (P < .001) for total brain volume. When CTseg was applied to a cross-sectional Alzheimer disease dataset (58 with Alzheimer disease patients and 58 matched controls), CTseg detected a loss in percentage total brain volume (as a percentage of total intracranial volume) with age (P < .001) as well as a group difference between patients with Alzheimer disease and controls (P < .01). We observed similar results when total brain volume was modeled with total intracranial volume as a confounding variable. CONCLUSIONS: In current clinical practice, brain atrophy is assessed by inaccurate and subjective “eyeballing” of CT images. Manual segmentation of head CT images is prohibitively arduous and time-consuming. CTseg can potentially help clinicians to automatically measure total brain volume and detect and track atrophy in neurodegenerative diseases. In addition, CTseg can be applied to large clinical archives for a variety of research studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".