Abstract
Subcortical volumes are a promising source of biomarkers and features in biosignatures, and automated methods facilitate extracting them in large, phenotypically rich datasets. However, while extensive research has verified that the automated methods produce volumes that are similar to those generated by expert annotation; the consistency of methods with each other is understudied. Using data from the UK Biobank, we compare the estimates of subcortical volumes produced by two popular software suites: FSL and FreeSurfer. Although most subcortical volumes exhibit good to excellent consistency across the methods, the tools produce diverging estimates of amygdalar volume. Through simulation, we show that this poor consistency can lead to conflicting results, where one but not the other tool suggests statistical significance, or where both tools suggest a significant relationship but in opposite directions. Considering these issues, we discuss several ways in which care should be taken when reporting on relationships involving amygdalar volume.