A (sub)field guide to quality control in hippocampal subfield segmentation on high‐resolution <scp> T <sub>2</sub> </scp> ‐weighted <scp>MRI</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inquiries into properties of brain structure and function have progressed due to developments in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). To sustain progress in investigating and quantifying neuroanatomical details in vivo, the reliability and validity of brain measurements are paramount. Quality control (QC) is a set of procedures for mitigating errors and ensuring the validity and reliability of brain measurements. Despite its importance, there is little guidance on best QC practices and reporting procedures. The study of hippocampal subfields in vivo is a critical case for QC because of their small size, inter-dependent boundary definitions, and common artifacts in the MRI data used for subfield measurements. We addressed this gap by surveying the broader scientific community studying hippocampal subfields on their views and approaches to QC. We received responses from 37 investigators spanning 10 countries, covering different career stages, and studying both healthy and pathological development and aging. In this sample, 81% of researchers considered QC to be very important or important, and 19% viewed it as fairly important. Despite this, only 46% of researchers reported on their QC processes in prior publications. In many instances, lack of reporting appeared due to ambiguous guidance on relevant details and guidance for reporting, rather than absence of QC. Here, we provide recommendations for correcting errors to maximize reliability and minimize bias. We also summarize threats to segmentation accuracy, review common QC methods, and make recommendations for best practices and reporting in publications. Implementing the recommended QC practices will collectively improve inferences to the larger population, as well as have implications for clinical practice and public health.
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 | 0.046 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.074 |
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".