MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122502207 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2014.12.002

Training labels for hippocampal segmentation based on the EADC‐ADNI harmonized hippocampal protocol

2015· article· en· W2122502207 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Boccardi, Martina Bocchetta, Félix C. Morency, D. Louis Collins, Masami Nishikawa, Rossana Ganzola, Michel J. Grothe, Dominik Wolf‎, Alberto Redolfi, Michela Pievani, Luigi Antelmi, Andreas Fellgiebel, Hiroshi Matsuda, Stefan Teipel, Simon Duchesne, Clifford R. Jack, Giovanni B. Frisoni

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationServierAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsHARPSegmentationHippocampal formationNeuroimagingMagnetic resonance imagingAtrophyIntraclass correlationMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Harmonized Protocol (HarP) is a Delphi definition of manual hippocampal segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that can be used as the standard of truth to train new tracers, and to validate automated segmentation algorithms. Training requires large and representative data sets of segmented hippocampi. This work aims to produce a set of HarP labels for the proper training and certification of tracers and algorithms. METHODS: Sixty-eight 1.5 T and 67 3 T volumetric structural ADNI scans from different subjects, balanced by age, medial temporal atrophy, and scanner manufacturer, were segmented by five qualified HarP tracers whose absolute interrater intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.953 and 0.975 (left and right). Labels were validated as HarP compliant through centralized quality check and correction. RESULTS: Hippocampal volumes (mm(3)) were as follows: controls: left = 3060 (standard deviation [SD], 502), right = 3120 (SD, 897); mild cognitive impairment (MCI): left = 2596 (SD, 447), right = 2686 (SD, 473); and Alzheimer's disease (AD): left = 2301 (SD, 492), right = 2445 (SD, 525). Volumes significantly correlated with atrophy severity at Scheltens' scale (Spearman's ρ = <-0.468, P = <.0005). Cerebrospinal fluid spaces (mm(3)) were as follows: controls: left = 23 (32), right = 25 (25); MCI: left = 15 (13), right = 22 (16); and AD: left = 11 (13), right = 20 (25). Five subjects (3.7%) presented with unusual anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides reference hippocampal labels for the training and certification of automated segmentation algorithms. The publicly released labels will allow the widespread implementation of the standard segmentation 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations152
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207