Operationalizing protocol differences for EADC‐ADNI manual hippocampal segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hippocampal volumetry on magnetic resonance imaging is recognized as an Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker, and manual segmentation is the gold standard for measurement. However, a standard procedure is lacking. We operationalize and quantitate landmark differences to help a Delphi panel converge on a set of landmarks. METHODS: One hundred percent of anatomic landmark variability across 12 different protocols for manual segmentation was reduced into four segmentation units (the minimum hippocampus, the alveus/fimbria, the tail, and the subiculum), which were segmented on magnetic resonance images by expert raters to estimate reliability and AD-related atrophy. RESULTS: Intra- and interrater reliability were more than 0.96 and 0.92, respectively, except for the alveus/fimbria, which were 0.86 and 0.77, respectively. Of all AD-related atrophy, the minimum hippocampus contributed to 67%; tail, 24%; alveus/fimbria, 4%; and the subiculum, 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic landmark variability in available protocols can be reduced to four discrete and measurable segmentation units. Their quantitative assessment will help a Delphi panel to define a set of landmarks for a harmonized protocol.
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 | 0.311 | 0.397 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".