Training labels for hippocampal segmentation based on the EADC‐ADNI harmonized hippocampal protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.072 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".