Performance of semi-automated hippocampal subfield segmentation methods across ages in a pediatric sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Episodic memory function has been shown to depend critically on the hippocampus. This region is made up of a number of subfields, which differ in both cytoarchitectural features and functional roles in the mature brain. Recent neuroimaging work in children and adolescents has suggested that these regions may undergo different developmental trajectories—a fact that has important implications for how we think about learning and memory processes in these populations. Despite the growing research interest in hippocampal structure and function at the subfield level in healthy young adults, comparatively fewer studies have been carried out looking at subfield development. One barrier to studying these questions has been that manual segmentation of hippocampal subfields—considered by many to be the best available approach for defining these regions—is laborious and can be infeasible for large cross-sectional or longitudinal studies of cognitive development. Moreover, manual segmentation requires some subjectivity and is not impervious to bias or error. In a developmental sample of individuals spanning 6-30 years, we assessed the degree to which two semi-automated segmentation approaches—one approach based on Automated Segmentation of Hippocampal Subfields (ASHS) and another utilizing Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs)—approximated manual subfield delineation on each individual by a single expert rater. Our main question was whether performance varied as a function of age group. Across several quantitative metrics, we found negligible differences in subfield validity across the child, adolescent, and adult age groups, suggesting that these methods can be reliably applied to developmental studies. We conclude that ASHS outperforms ANTs overall and is thus preferable for analyses carried out in individual subject space. However, we underscore that ANTs is also acceptable and may be well-suited for analyses requiring normalization to a single group template (e.g., voxelwise analyses across a wide age range). Previous work has supported the use of such methods in healthy young adults, as well as several special populations such as older adults and those suffering from mild cognitive impairment. Our results extend these previous findings to show that ASHS and ANTs can also be used in pediatric populations as young as six.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".