Establishing Magnetic Resonance Images Orientation for the EADC‐ADNI Manual Hippocampal Segmentation Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An effort to define and validate a Harmonized Protocol for standard hippocampal segmentation is being carried out. We wished to estimate the effect of magnetic resonance image (MRI) spatial orientation on manual hippocampal segmentations to define optimal standard orientation of MRIs for hippocampal volumetry. METHODS: Three expert tracers segmented twice the hippocampi of 10 ADNI subjects on MRI slices oriented perpendicular to the anterior-posterior commissure (AC-PC) line and the long hippocampal axes plane, following internationally harmonized landmarks. We computed intra and interrater reliability figures for total volumes and similarity coefficients. RESULTS: Total volume reliability was similar for both orientations. Similarity coefficients were significantly higher for the AC-PC orientation (exact P = 0.002). DISCUSSION: These data show that AC-PC orientation is slightly more reliable for manual segmentations, possibly due to better visualization of the cerebrospinal fluid spaces separating hippocampal head and amygdala. A Delphi panel of experts has used these data to decide on the optimal orientation for a Harmonized Protocol for hippocampal segmentation.
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 | 0.086 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".