MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296143752 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2022.101864

A detailed manual segmentation procedure for the hypothalamus for 3T T1-weighted MRI

2022· article· en· W4296143752 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Ali, Jee Su Suh, Milita Ramonas, Stefanie Hassel, Stephen R. Arnott, Stephen C. Strother, Luciano Minuzzi, Roberto B. Sassi, Raymond W. Lam, Roumen Milev, Daniel J. Müller, Valerie H. Taylor, Sidney H. Kennedy, Benício N. Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormones
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonBaycrest HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesQueen's UniversityJuravinski HospitalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchH. Lundbeck A/SOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of OntarioOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationServierOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFully automaticNeuroimagingPattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationComputer visionNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hypothalamus is a small grey matter structure which plays a crucial role in many physiological functions. Some studies have found an association between hypothalamic volume and psychopathology, which stresses the need for a standardized method to maximize segmentation accuracy. Here, we provide a detailed step-by-step method outlining the procedures to manually segment the hypothalamus using anatomical T1w images from 3T scanners, which many neuroimaging studies collect as a standard anatomical reference image. We compared volumes generated by manual segmentation and those generated by an automatic algorithm, observing a significant difference between automatically and manually segmented hypothalamus volumes on both sides (left: U = 222842, p-value < 2.2e-16; right: U = 218520, p- value < 2.2e-16).•Significant difference exists between existing automatic segmentation methods and the manual segmentation procedure.•We discuss potential drift effects, segmentation quality issues, and suggestions on how to mitigate them.•We demonstrate that the present manual segmentation procedure using standard T1-weighted MRI may be significantly more accurate than automatic segmentation outputs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormonesFrench-language works237,207