Statistical validation of automatic methods for hippocampus segmentation in MR images of epileptic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampus segmentation is a key step in the evaluation of mesial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (mTLE) by MR images. Several automated segmentation methods have been introduced for medical image segmentation. Because of multiple edges, missing boundaries, and shape changing along its longitudinal axis, manual outlining still remains the benchmark for hippocampus segmentation, which however, is impractical for large datasets due to time constraints. In this study, four automatic methods, namely FreeSurfer, Hammer, Automatic Brain Structure Segmentation (ABSS), and LocalInfo segmentation, are evaluated to find the most accurate and applicable method that resembles the bench-mark of hippocampus. Results from these four methods are compared against those obtained using manual segmentation for T1-weighted images of 157 symptomatic mTLE patients. For performance evaluation of automatic segmentation, Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, Precision, and Root Mean Square (RMS) distance are extracted and compared. Among these four automated methods, ABSS generates the most accurate results and the reproducibility is more similar to expert manual outlining by statistical validation. By considering p-value<;0.05, the results of performance measurement for ABSS reveal that, Dice is 4%, 13%, and 17% higher, Hausdorff is 23%, 87%, and 70% lower, precision is 5%, -5%, and 12% higher, and RMS is 19%, 62%, and 65% lower compared to LocalInfo, FreeSurfer, and Hammer, respectively.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".