Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A (sub)field guide to quality control in hippocampal subfield segmentation on high-resolution T2-weighted MRI.

Canada, Kelsey L ; Mazloum-Farzaghi, Negar ; Rådman, Gustaf LU orcid ; Adams, Jenna N ; Bakker, Arnold ; Baumeister, Hannah LU ; Berron, David LU ; Bocchetta, Martina ; Carr, Valerie A and Dalton, Marshall A , et al. (2024) In Human Brain Mapping 45(15).
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... (More)

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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
author collaboration
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Hippocampus/diagnostic imaging, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging/standards, Quality Control, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/standards, Reproducibility of Results, Neuroimaging/standards
in
Human Brain Mapping
volume
45
issue
15
article number
e70004
publisher
Wiley-Liss Inc.
external identifiers
  • scopus:85207370740
  • pmid:39450914
ISSN
1065-9471
DOI
10.1002/hbm.70004
language
English
LU publication?
yes
additional info
© 2024 The Author(s). Human Brain Mapping published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
id
8420aa52-3d36-4810-99c4-a30733d85648
date added to LUP
2024-11-01 09:38:49
date last changed
2025-07-27 03:09:11
@article{8420aa52-3d36-4810-99c4-a30733d85648,
  abstract     = {{<p>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.</p>}},
  author       = {{Canada, Kelsey L and Mazloum-Farzaghi, Negar and Rådman, Gustaf and Adams, Jenna N and Bakker, Arnold and Baumeister, Hannah and Berron, David and Bocchetta, Martina and Carr, Valerie A and Dalton, Marshall A and de Flores, Robin and Keresztes, Attila and La Joie, Renaud and Mueller, Susanne G and Raz, Naftali and Santini, Tales and Shaw, Thomas and Stark, Craig E L and Tran, Tammy T and Wang, Lei and Wisse, Laura E M and Wuestefeld, Anika and Yushkevich, Paul A and Olsen, Rosanna K and Daugherty, Ana M}},
  issn         = {{1065-9471}},
  keywords     = {{Hippocampus/diagnostic imaging; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/standards; Quality Control; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/standards; Reproducibility of Results; Neuroimaging/standards}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{10}},
  number       = {{15}},
  publisher    = {{Wiley-Liss Inc.}},
  series       = {{Human Brain Mapping}},
  title        = {{A (sub)field guide to quality control in hippocampal subfield segmentation on high-resolution T<sub>2</sub>-weighted MRI.}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.70004}},
  doi          = {{10.1002/hbm.70004}},
  volume       = {{45}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}