A Novel Approach for Manual Segmentation of the Amygdala and Hippocampus in Neonate MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gross anatomy of the infant brain at term is fairly similar to that of the adult brain, but structures are immature, and the brain undergoes rapid growth during the first 2 years of life. Neonate magnetic resonance (MR) images have different contrasts compared to adult images, and automated segmentation of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can thus be considered challenging as less software options are available. Despite this, most anatomical regions are identifiable and thus amenable to manual segmentation. In the current study, we developed a protocol for segmenting the amygdala and hippocampus in T2-weighted neonatal MR images. The participants were 31 healthy infants between 2 and 5 weeks of age. Intra-rater reliability was measured in 12 randomly selected MR images, where 6 MR images were segmented at 1-month intervals between the delineations, and another 6 MR images at 6-month intervals. The protocol was also tested by two independent raters in 20 randomly selected T2-weighted images, and finally with T1 images. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for intra-rater, inter-rater, and T1 vs. T2 comparisons were computed. Moreover, manual segmentations were compared to automated segmentations performed by iBEAT toolbox in 10 T2-weighted MR images. The intra-rater reliability was high ICC ≥ 0.91, DSC ≥ 0.89, the inter-rater reliabilities were satisfactory ICC ≥ 0.90, DSC ≥ 0.75 for hippocampus and DSC ≥ 0.52 for amygdalae. Segmentations for T1 vs. T2-weighted images showed high consistency ICC ≥ 0.90, DSC ≥ 0.74. The manual and iBEAT segmentations showed no agreement, DSC ≥ 0.39. In conclusion, there is a clear need to improve and develop the procedures for automated segmentation of infant brain MR images.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".