Reliability and sensitivity of two whole-brain segmentation approaches included in FreeSurfer – ASEG and SAMSEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate and reliable whole-brain segmentation is critical to longitudinal neuroimaging studies. We undertake a comparative analysis of two subcortical segmentation methods, Automatic Segmentation (ASEG) and Sequence Adaptive Multimodal Segmentation (SAMSEG), recently provided in the open-source neuroimaging package FreeSurfer 7.1, with regard to reliability, bias, sensitivity to detect longitudinal change, and diagnostic sensitivity to Alzheimer's disease. First, we assess intra- and inter-scanner reliability for eight bilateral subcortical structures: amygdala, caudate, hippocampus, lateral ventricles, nucleus accumbens, pallidum, putamen and thalamus. For intra-scanner analysis we use a large sample of participants (n = 1629) distributed across the lifespan (age range = 4-93 years) and acquired on a 1.5T Siemens Avanto (n = 774) and a 3T Siemens Skyra (n = 855) scanners. For inter-scanner analysis we use a sample of 24 participants scanned on the day with three models of Siemens scanners: 1.5T Avanto, 3T Skyra and 3T Prisma. Second, we test how each method detects volumetric age change using longitudinal follow up scans (n = 491 for Avanto and n = 245 for Skyra; interscan interval = 1-10 years). Finally, we test sensitivity to clinically relevant change. We compare annual rate of hippocampal atrophy in cognitively normal older adults (n = 20), patients with mild cognitive impairment (n = 20) and Alzheimer's disease (n = 20). We find that both ASEG and SAMSEG are reliable and lead to the detection of within-person longitudinal change, although with notable differences between age-trajectories for most structures, including hippocampus and amygdala. In summary, SAMSEG yields significantly lower differences between repeated measures for intra- and inter-scanner analysis without compromising sensitivity to changes and demonstrating ability to detect clinically relevant longitudinal changes.
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 | 0.041 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".