Harmonized benchmark labels of the hippocampus on magnetic resonance: The EADC‐ADNI project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A globally harmonized protocol (HarP) for manual hippocampal segmentation based on magnetic resonance has been recently developed by a task force from European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium (EADC) and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Our aim was to produce benchmark labels based on the HarP for manual segmentation. METHODS: Five experts of manual hippocampal segmentation underwent specific training on the HarP and segmented 40 right and left hippocampi from 10 ADNI subjects on both 1.5 T and 3 T scans. An independent expert visually checked segmentations for compliance with the HarP. Descriptive measures of agreement between tracers were intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of crude volumes and similarity coefficients of three-dimensional volumes. RESULTS: Two hundred labels have been provided for the 20 magnetic resonance images. Intra- and interrater ICCs were >0.94, and mean similarity coefficients were 1.5 T, 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.75); 3 T, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.76). CONCLUSION: Certified benchmark labels have been produced based on the HarP to be used for tracers' training and qualification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".