Shape Information Improves the Cross-Cohort Performance of Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of the Hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performing an accurate segmentation of the hippocampus from brain magnetic resonance images is a crucial task in neuroimaging research, since its structural integrity is strongly related to several neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). Some automatic segmentation tools are already being used, but, in recent years, new deep learning (DL)-based methods have been proven to be much more accurate in various medical image segmentation tasks. In this work, we propose a DL-based hippocampus segmentation framework that embeds statistical shape of the hippocampus as context information into the deep neural network (DNN). The inclusion of shape information is achieved with three main steps: (1) a U-Net-based segmentation, (2) a shape model estimation, and (3) a second U-Net-based segmentation which uses both the original input data and the fitted shape model. The trained DL architectures were tested on image data of three diagnostic groups [AD patients, subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and controls] from two cohorts (ADNI and AddNeuroMed). Both intra-cohort validation and cross-cohort validation were performed and compared with the conventional U-net architecture and some variations with other types of context information (i.e., autocontext and tissue-class context). Our results suggest that adding shape information can improve the segmentation accuracy in cross-cohort validation, i.e., when DNNs are trained on one cohort and applied to another. However, no significant benefit is observed in intra-cohort validation, i.e., training and testing DNNs on images from the same cohort. Moreover, compared to other types of context information, the use of shape context was shown to be the most successful in increasing the accuracy, while keeping the computational time in the order of a few minutes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".