Systematic comparison of different techniques to measure hippocampal subfield volumes in ADNI2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Subfield-specific measurements provide superior information in the early stages of neurodegenerative diseases compared to global hippocampal measurements. The overall goal was to systematically compare the performance of five representative manual and automated T1 and T2 based subfield labeling techniques in a sub-set of the ADNI2 population. Methods: The high resolution T2 weighted hippocampal images (T2-HighRes) and the corresponding T1 images from 106 ADNI2 subjects (41 controls, 57 MCI, 8 AD) were processed as follows. A. T1-based: 1. Freesurfer + Large-Diffeomorphic-Metric-Mapping in combination with shape analysis. 2. FreeSurfer 5.1 subfields using in-vivo atlas. B. T2-HighRes: 1. Model-based subfield segmentation using ex-vivo atlas (FreeSurfer 6.0). 2. T2-based automated multi-atlas segmentation combined with similarity-weighted voting (ASHS). 3. Manual subfield parcellation. Multiple regression analyses were used to calculate effect sizes (ES) for group, amyloid positivity in controls, and associations with cognitive/memory performance for each approach. Results: Subfield volumetry was better than whole hippocampal volumetry for the detection of the mild atrophy differences between controls and MCI (ES: 0.27 vs 0.11). T2-HighRes approaches outperformed T1 approaches for the detection of early stage atrophy (ES: 0.27 vs.0.10), amyloid positivity (ES: 0.11 vs 0.04), and cognitive associations (ES: 0.22 vs 0.19). Conclusions: T2-HighRes subfield approaches outperformed whole hippocampus and T1 subfield approaches. None of the different T2-HghRes methods tested had a clear advantage over the other methods. Each has strengths and weaknesses that need to be taken into account when deciding which one to use to get the best results from subfield volumetry.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".