MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406197134 · doi:10.1002/alz.094891

A harmonized, histology‐based protocol for selection of medial temporal lobe cortical subregion ranges on magnetic resonance imaging

2024· article· en· W4406197134 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna N. Adams, Hannah Baumeister, Thanh P. Doan, Anne Maaß, Negar Mazloum‐Farzaghi, Tammy Tran, Anika Wuestefeld, Jean C. Augustinack, Song‐Lin Ding, Ricardo Insausti, Olga Kedo, Arnold Bakker, David Berron, Kelsey L. Canada, Valerie A. Carr, Marshall A. Dalton, Ana M. Daugherty, Robin de Florès, Renaud La Joie, Susanne Mueller, Rosanna K. Olsen, Craig E.L. Stark, Lei Wang, Laura E.M. Wisse, Paul A. Yushkevich

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingTemporal lobeSelection (genetic algorithm)Protocol (science)Functional magnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychologyNeuroscienceMedicinePathologyRadiologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The medial temporal lobe (MTL) has distinct cortical subregions that are differentially vulnerable to pathology and neurodegeneration in diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. However, previous protocols for segmentation of MTL cortical subregions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) vary substantially across research groups, and have been informed by different cytoarchitectonic definitions, precluding consistent interpretations. The Hippocampal Subfields Group aims to create a harmonized, histology‐based protocol for segmentation of MTL cortical subregions that can reliably be applied to T2‐weighted MRI with high in‐plane resolution. Method Nissl‐stained sections from the temporal lobes of three human specimens (66‐90 years old; 2 female) were annotated by four expert neuroanatomists for the following MTL subregions: entorhinal cortex (ERC), Brodmann’s Area 35 (BA35; largely corresponding to “transentorhinal” cortex), Brodmann’s Area 36 (BA36), and parahippocampal cortex (PHC). On each histology section, the number of annotations and the spatial overlap of annotations were analyzed to determine the consensus of the anterior to posterior range of each structure. Gross anatomical landmarks, detectable on MRI and reliably corresponding with each range, were then selected to create an MRI ranging protocol. Feasibility of this MRI protocol was tested by two independent raters across four MRI scans (two healthy adults, two older adults), and agreement in range selection was assessed using Cohen’s kappa statistic. Result The proposed MTL ranging protocol is shown in Fig. 1, and corresponding histology data substantiating the protocol is shown in Fig. 2. MRI‐visible gross anatomical landmarks that reliably corresponded with the anterior or posterior range of each subregion on histology included the anterior‐most appearance of the collateral sulcus (Fig. 3A), hippocampal head (Fig. 3B), hippocampal body, and anterior calcarine fissure (Fig. 3C). This protocol demonstrated high feasibility when applied to MRI, with average kappa values of 0.75 ± 0.07, representing a “substantial” level of agreement of range selection. Conclusion Future directions include obtaining consensus on this protocol from the larger research community through a Delphi procedure, and expansion of the protocol to include slice‐by‐slice segmentation guidelines for full delineation. This harmonized, histology‐based protocol will facilitate critical research on MTL subregion vulnerability and their contributions to memory deficits in Alzheimer’s disease.

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)0.013
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→