Delphi definition of the EADC‐ADNI Harmonized Protocol for hippocampal segmentation on magnetic resonance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to have international experts converge on a harmonized definition of whole hippocampus boundaries and segmentation procedures, to define standard operating procedures for magnetic resonance (MR)-based manual hippocampal segmentation. METHODS: The panel received a questionnaire regarding whole hippocampus boundaries and segmentation procedures. Quantitative information was supplied to allow evidence-based answers. A recursive and anonymous Delphi procedure was used to achieve convergence. Significance of agreement among panelists was assessed by exact probability on Fisher's and binomial tests. RESULTS: Agreement was significant on the inclusion of alveus/fimbria (P = .021), whole hippocampal tail (P = .013), medial border of the body according to visible morphology (P = .0006), and on this combined set of features (P = .001). This definition captures 100% of hippocampal tissue, 100% of Alzheimer's disease-related atrophy, and demonstrated good reliability on preliminary intrarater (0.98) and inter-rater (0.94) estimates. DISCUSSION: Consensus was achieved among international experts with respect to hippocampal segmentation using MR resulting in a harmonized 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".