<scp>FreeSurfer</scp>‐based segmentation of hippocampal subfields: A review of methods and applications, with a novel quality control procedure for <scp>ENIGMA</scp> studies and other collaborative efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural hippocampal abnormalities are common in many neurological and psychiatric disorders, and variation in hippocampal measures is related to cognitive performance and other complex phenotypes such as stress sensitivity. Hippocampal subregions are increasingly studied, as automated algorithms have become available for mapping and volume quantification. In the context of the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta Analysis Consortium, several Disease Working Groups are using the FreeSurfer software to analyze hippocampal subregion (subfield) volumes in patients with neurological and psychiatric conditions along with data from matched controls. In this overview, we explain the algorithm's principles, summarize measurement reliability studies, and demonstrate two additional aspects (subfield autocorrelation and volume/reliability correlation) with illustrative data. We then explain the rationale for a standardized hippocampal subfield segmentation quality control (QC) procedure for improved pipeline harmonization. To guide researchers to make optimal use of the algorithm, we discuss how global size and age effects can be modeled, how QC steps can be incorporated and how subfields may be aggregated into composite volumes. This discussion is based on a synopsis of 162 published neuroimaging studies (01/2013-12/2019) that applied the FreeSurfer hippocampal subfield segmentation in a broad range of domains including cognition and healthy aging, brain development and neurodegeneration, affective disorders, psychosis, stress regulation, neurotoxicity, epilepsy, inflammatory disease, childhood adversity and posttraumatic stress disorder, and candidate and whole genome (epi-)genetics. Finally, we highlight points where FreeSurfer-based hippocampal subfield studies may be optimized.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".