Automated and manual segmentation of the hippocampus in human infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hippocampus, critical for learning and memory, undergoes substantial changes early in life. Investigating the developmental trajectory of hippocampal structure and function requires an accurate method for segmenting this region from anatomical MRI scans. Although manual segmentation is regarded as the “gold standard” approach, it is laborious and subjective. This has fueled the pursuit of automated segmentation methods in adults. However, little is known about the reliability of these protocols in human infants, particularly when anatomical scan quality is low from increased head motion or shorter sequences that minimize head motion. During a task-based fMRI protocol, we collected quiet T1-weighted anatomical scans from 42 sessions with awake infants aged 4–23 months. We first had two expert tracers manually segment the hippocampus bilaterally and assess inter-rater reliability. We then attempted to predict these manual segmentations using four protocols: average adult template, average infant template, FreeSurfer software, and Automated Segmentation of Hippocampal Subfields (ASHS) software. ASHS generated the most reliable hippocampal segmentations in infants, exceeding manual inter-rater reliability of the experts. Automated methods can thus provide robust hippocampal segmentations of noisy T1-weighted infant scans, opening new possibilities for interrogating early hippocampal development. Highlights Inter-rater reliability of manual segmentation of infant hippocampus is moderate. Template-based methods and FreeSurfer provide reasonably accurate segmentations. ASHS produces highly accurate segmentations, exceeding manual inter-rater reliability.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".