Hippocampal subfield volumetry from structural isotropic 1 mm<sup>3</sup><scp>MRI</scp> scans: A note of caution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spurred by availability of automatic segmentation software, in vivo MRI investigations of human hippocampal subfield volumes have proliferated in the recent years. However, a majority of these studies apply automatic segmentation to MRI scans with approximately 1 × 1 × 1 mm 3 resolution, a resolution at which the internal structure of the hippocampus can rarely be visualized. Many of these studies have reported contradictory and often neurobiologically surprising results pertaining to the involvement of hippocampal subfields in normal brain function, aging, and disease. In this commentary, we first outline our concerns regarding the utility and validity of subfield segmentation on 1 × 1 × 1 mm 3 MRI for volumetric studies, regardless of how images are segmented (i.e., manually or automatically). This image resolution is generally insufficient for visualizing the internal structure of the hippocampus, particularly the stratum radiatum lacunosum moleculare, which is crucial for valid and reliable subfield segmentation. Second, we discuss the fact that automatic methods that are employed most frequently to obtain hippocampal subfield volumes from 1 × 1 × 1 mm 3 MRI have not been validated against manual segmentation on such images. For these reasons, we caution against using volumetric measurements of hippocampal subfields obtained from 1 × 1 × 1 mm 3 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".