An effective and robust lattice Boltzmann model guided by atlas for hippocampal subregions segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the varying vulnerability of the rostral and caudal regions of the hippocampus to neuropathology in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum, accurately assessing structural changes in these subregions is crucial for early AD detection. The development of reliable and robust automatic segmentation methods for hippocampal subregions (HS) is of utmost importance. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to propose and validate a HS segmentation model that is both training-free and highly generalizable. This method should exhibit comparable accuracy and efficiency to state-of-the-art techniques. The segmented HS can serve as a biomarker for studying the progression of AD. METHODS: We utilized the functional magnetic resonance imaging of the Brain's Integrated Registration and Segmentation Tool (FIRST) to segment the entire hippocampus. By intersecting the segmentation results with the Brainnetome (BN) atlas, we obtained coarse segmentation of the four HS regions. This coarse segmentation was then employed as a shape prior term in the lattice Boltzmann (LB) model, as well as for initializing contours. Additionally, image gradients and local gray levels were integrated into the external force terms of the LB model to refine the coarse segmentation results. We assessed the segmentation accuracy of the model using the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset and evaluated the potential of the segmentation results as AD biomarkers on both the ADNI and Xuanwu datasets. RESULTS: The median Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) for the left caudal, right caudal, left rostral, and right rostral hippocampus were 0.87, 0.88, 0.88, and 0.89, respectively. The proportion of segmentation results with a DSC exceeding 0.8 was 77%, 78%, 77%, and 94% for the respective regions. In terms of volume, the correlation coefficients between the segmentation results of the four HS regions and the gold standard were 0.95, 0.93, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. Regarding asymmetry, the correlation coefficient between the segmentation result's right caudal minus left caudal and the corresponding gold standard was 0.91, while for right rostral minus left rostral, it was 0.93. Over time, we observed a decline in the volumes of the four HS regions and the total hippocampal volume of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) converters. Analysis of inter-group differences revealed that, except for the right rostral region in the ADNI dataset, the p-values for the four HS regions in the normal controls (NC), MCI, and AD groups from both datasets were all below 0.05. The right caudal hippocampal volume demonstrated correlation coefficients of 0.47 and 0.43 with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), respectively. Similarly, the left rostral hippocampal volume showed correlation coefficients of 0.50 and 0.58 with MMSE and MoCA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework allows for direct application to different brain magnetic resonance (MR) datasets without the need for training. It eliminates the requirement for complex image preprocessing steps while achieving segmentation accuracy comparable to deep learning (DL) methods even with small sample sizes. Compared to traditional active contour models (ACM) and atlas-based methods, our approach exhibits significant speed advantages. The segmented HS regions hold promise as potential biomarkers for studying the progression of AD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".