Automatic segmentation of the hippocampus and the amygdala driven by hybrid constraints: Method and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The segmentation from MRI of macroscopically ill-defined and highly variable structures, such as the hippocampus (Hc) and the amygdala (Am), requires the use of specific constraints. Here, we describe and evaluate a fast fully automatic hybrid segmentation that uses knowledge derived from probabilistic atlases and anatomical landmarks, adapted from a semi-automatic method. The algorithm was designed at the outset for application on images from healthy subjects and patients with hippocampal sclerosis. Probabilistic atlases were built from 16 healthy subjects, registered using SPM5. Local mismatch in the atlas registration step was automatically detected and corrected. Quantitative evaluation with respect to manual segmentations was performed on the 16 young subjects, with a leave-one-out strategy, a mixed cohort of 8 controls and 15 patients with epilepsy with variable degrees of hippocampal sclerosis, and 8 healthy subjects acquired on a 3 T scanner. Seven performance indices were computed, among which error on volumes RV and Dice overlap K. The method proved to be fast, robust and accurate. For Hc, results with the new method were: 16 young subjects {RV=5%, K=87%}; mixed cohort {RV=8%, K=84%}; 3 T cohort {RV=9%, K=85%}. Results were better than with atlas-based (thresholded probability map) or semi-automatic segmentations. Atlas mismatch detection and correction proved efficient for the most sclerotic Hc. For Am, results were: 16 young controls {RV=7%, K=85%}; mixed cohort {RV=19%, K=78%}; 3 T cohort {RV=10%, K=77%}. Results were better than with the semi-automatic segmentation, and were also better than atlas-based segmentations for the 16 young subjects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".