An automated, geometry-based method for hippocampal shape and thickness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hippocampus is one of the most studied neuroanatomical structures due to its involvement in attention, learning, and memory as well as its atrophy in ageing, neurological, and psychiatric diseases. Hippocampal shape changes, however, are complex and cannot be fully characterized by a single summary metric such as hippocampal volume as determined from MR images. In this work, we propose an automated, geometry-based approach for the unfolding, point-wise correspondence, and local analysis of hippocampal shape features such as thickness and curvature. Starting from an automated segmentation of hippocampal subfields, we create a 3D tetrahedral mesh model as well as a 3D intrinsic coordinate system of the hippocampal body. From this coordinate system, we derive local curvature and thickness estimates as well as a 2D sheet for hippocampal unfolding. We evaluate the performance of our algorithm with a series of experiments to quantify neurodegenerative changes in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia. We find that hippocampal thickness estimates detect known differences between clinical groups and can determine the location of these effects on the hippocampal sheet. Further, thickness estimates improve classification of clinical groups and cognitively unimpaired controls when added as an additional predictor. Comparable results are obtained with different datasets and segmentation algorithms. Taken together, we replicate canonical findings on hippocampal volume/shape changes in dementia, extend them by gaining insight into their spatial localization on the hippocampal sheet, and provide additional, complementary information beyond traditional measures. We provide a new set of sensitive processing and analysis tools for the analysis of hippocampal geometry that allows comparisons across studies without relying on image registration or requiring manual intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".