Item

Abstract

Morphometry offers new approaches for in vivo characterization of many neurolog- ic and psychiatric pathologies. A survey of recent publications only hints at the at- tractiveness of magnetic resonance-based morphometry: published findings are het- erogeneous, partly contradictory, and not always plausible in terms of known neu- ropathologic correlates. Hence, the sensitiv- ity of the applied methods should be ques- tioned. Three parameters affect the vari- ance in morphometric findings: (1) knowl- edge about normal morphologic variabil- ity, (2) confounding physiologic parame- ters, and (3) methodologic misuse. Sound knowledge about the morphologic variabil- ity of the normal brain is vital for the assess- ment of volumetric findings. Large morpho- logic variability may also interfere with the precision of morphometric methods. The multitude of possible confounding physio- logic parameters raises the necessity of pre- cise subject control. Magnetic resonance scanning artefacts require rigid protocols, and application of the rather complex and sensitive methods demands profound in- sight into the techniques.