Manual segmentation qualification platform for the EADC‐ADNI harmonized protocol for hippocampal segmentation project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of hippocampal volumetry as a biomarker for Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires that tracers from different laboratories comply with the same segmentation method. Here we present a platform for training and qualifying new tracers to perform the manual segmentation of the hippocampus on magnetic resonance images (MRI) following the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (EADC-ADNI) Harmonized Protocol (HarP). Our objective was to demonstrate that the training process embedded in the platform leads to increased compliance and qualification with the HarP. METHOD: Thirteen new tracers' segmentations were compared with benchmark images with respect to: (a) absolute segmentation volume; (b) spatial overlap of contour with the reference using the Jaccard similarity index; and (c) spatial distance of contour with the reference. Point by point visual feedback was provided through three training phases on 10 MRI. Tracers were then tested on 10 different MRIs in the qualification phase. RESULTS: Statistical testing of training over three phases showed a significant increase of Jaccard (i.e. mean Jaccard overlap P < .001) between phases on average for all raters, demonstrating that training positively increased compliance with the HarP. Based on these results we defined qualification thresholds which all tracers were able to meet. CONCLUSIONS: This platform is an adequate infrastructure allowing standardized training and evaluation of tracers' compliance with the HarP. This is a necessary step allowing the use of hippocampal volumetry as a biomarker for AD in clinical and research centers.
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 | 0.102 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.024 |
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".