MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415271613 · doi:10.3390/math13203309

Dataset-Aware Preprocessing for Hippocampal Segmentation: Insights from Ablation and Transfer Learning

2025· article· en· W4415271613 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Junhyung Kim, Ji‐In Kim, Goo‐Rak Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenentechNational Institutes of HealthEisaiNational Research Foundation of KoreaChosun UniversityMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheNational Research FoundationBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyBiogenAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsSegmentationPreprocessorPipeline (software)Transfer of learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data pre-processingDeep learningHARPHausdorff distancePerspective (graphical)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate hippocampal segmentation in 3D MRI is essential for neurodegenerative disease research and diagnosis. Preprocessing pipelines can strongly influence segmentation accuracy, yet their impact across datasets and in transfer learning scenarios remains underexplored. This study systematically compares a No Preprocessing (NP) pipeline and a Full Preprocessing (FP) pipeline for hippocampal segmentation on the EADC-ADNI HarP clinical dataset and the multi-site MSD dataset using a 3D U-Net with residual connections and dropout regularization. Evaluations employed standard overlap metrics, Hausdorff Distance (HD), and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, complemented by qualitative analysis. Results show that NP consistently outperformed FP in Dice, Jaccard, and F1 metrics on HarP (e.g., Dice 0.8876 vs. 0.8753, p < 0.05), while FP achieved superior HD, indicating better boundary precision. Similar trends emerged in transfer learning from MSD to HarP, with NP improving overlap measures and FP maintaining lower HD. To test whether the findings generalize across architectures, experiments on Harp Dataset were also repeated with a 3D V-Net backbone, which reproduced the same trend. Comparative analysis with recent studies confirmed the competitiveness of the proposed approach despite lower input resolution and reduced model complexity. These findings highlight that preprocessing choice should be tailored to dataset characteristics and the target evaluation metric. The results provide practical guidance for selecting segmentation workflows in clinical and multi-center neuroimaging applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207