Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI : towards a harmonized segmentation protocol

Yushkevich, Paul A ; Amaral, Robert S C ; Augustinack, Jean C ; Bender, Andrew R ; Bernstein, Jeffrey D ; Boccardi, Marina ; Bocchetta, Martina ; Burggren, Alison C ; Carr, Valerie A and Chakravarty, M Mallar , et al. (2015) In NeuroImage 111. p.41-526
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of human in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have focused on examining the structure and function of the subfields of the hippocampal formation (the dentate gyrus, CA fields 1-3, and the subiculum) and subregions of the parahippocampal gyrus (entorhinal, perirhinal, and parahippocampal cortices). The ability to interpret the results of such studies and to relate them to each other would be improved if a common standard existed for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions. Currently, research groups label different subsets of structures and use different rules, landmarks, and cues to define their anatomical extents. This paper characterizes, both qualitatively and... (More)

OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of human in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have focused on examining the structure and function of the subfields of the hippocampal formation (the dentate gyrus, CA fields 1-3, and the subiculum) and subregions of the parahippocampal gyrus (entorhinal, perirhinal, and parahippocampal cortices). The ability to interpret the results of such studies and to relate them to each other would be improved if a common standard existed for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions. Currently, research groups label different subsets of structures and use different rules, landmarks, and cues to define their anatomical extents. This paper characterizes, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the variability in the existing manual segmentation protocols for labeling hippocampal and parahippocampal substructures in MRI, with the goal of guiding subsequent work on developing a harmonized substructure segmentation protocol.

METHOD: MRI scans of a single healthy adult human subject were acquired both at 3 T and 7 T. Representatives from 21 research groups applied their respective manual segmentation protocols to the MRI modalities of their choice. The resulting set of 21 segmentations was analyzed in a common anatomical space to quantify similarity and identify areas of agreement.

RESULTS: The differences between the 21 protocols include the region within which segmentation is performed, the set of anatomical labels used, and the extents of specific anatomical labels. The greatest overall disagreement among the protocols is at the CA1/subiculum boundary, and disagreement across all structures is greatest in the anterior portion of the hippocampal formation relative to the body and tail.

CONCLUSIONS: The combined examination of the 21 protocols in the same dataset suggests possible strategies towards developing a harmonized subfield segmentation protocol and facilitates comparison between published studies.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
author collaboration
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
keywords
Adult, Clinical Protocols/standards, Hippocampus/anatomy & histology, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods, Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods, Parahippocampal Gyrus/anatomy & histology
in
NeuroImage
volume
111
pages
41 - 526
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • pmid:25596463
  • scopus:84939468449
ISSN
1095-9572
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004
language
English
LU publication?
no
additional info
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
id
a1c0cdab-7d86-4129-9611-a808aa4a6a0b
date added to LUP
2024-02-28 14:54:09
date last changed
2024-05-13 03:09:02
@article{a1c0cdab-7d86-4129-9611-a808aa4a6a0b,
  abstract     = {{<p>OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of human in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have focused on examining the structure and function of the subfields of the hippocampal formation (the dentate gyrus, CA fields 1-3, and the subiculum) and subregions of the parahippocampal gyrus (entorhinal, perirhinal, and parahippocampal cortices). The ability to interpret the results of such studies and to relate them to each other would be improved if a common standard existed for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions. Currently, research groups label different subsets of structures and use different rules, landmarks, and cues to define their anatomical extents. This paper characterizes, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the variability in the existing manual segmentation protocols for labeling hippocampal and parahippocampal substructures in MRI, with the goal of guiding subsequent work on developing a harmonized substructure segmentation protocol.</p><p>METHOD: MRI scans of a single healthy adult human subject were acquired both at 3 T and 7 T. Representatives from 21 research groups applied their respective manual segmentation protocols to the MRI modalities of their choice. The resulting set of 21 segmentations was analyzed in a common anatomical space to quantify similarity and identify areas of agreement.</p><p>RESULTS: The differences between the 21 protocols include the region within which segmentation is performed, the set of anatomical labels used, and the extents of specific anatomical labels. The greatest overall disagreement among the protocols is at the CA1/subiculum boundary, and disagreement across all structures is greatest in the anterior portion of the hippocampal formation relative to the body and tail.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS: The combined examination of the 21 protocols in the same dataset suggests possible strategies towards developing a harmonized subfield segmentation protocol and facilitates comparison between published studies.</p>}},
  author       = {{Yushkevich, Paul A and Amaral, Robert S C and Augustinack, Jean C and Bender, Andrew R and Bernstein, Jeffrey D and Boccardi, Marina and Bocchetta, Martina and Burggren, Alison C and Carr, Valerie A and Chakravarty, M Mallar and Chételat, Gaël and Daugherty, Ana M and Davachi, Lila and Ding, Song-Lin and Ekstrom, Arne and Geerlings, Mirjam I and Hassan, Abdul and Huang, Yushan and Iglesias, J Eugenio and La Joie, Renaud and Kerchner, Geoffrey A and LaRocque, Karen F and Libby, Laura A and Malykhin, Nikolai and Mueller, Susanne G and Olsen, Rosanna K and Palombo, Daniela J and Parekh, Mansi B and Pluta, John B and Preston, Alison R and Pruessner, Jens C and Ranganath, Charan and Raz, Naftali and Schlichting, Margaret L and Schoemaker, Dorothee and Singh, Sachi and Stark, Craig E L and Suthana, Nanthia and Tompary, Alexa and Turowski, Marta M and Van Leemput, Koen and Wagner, Anthony D and Wang, Lei and Winterburn, Julie L and Wisse, Laura E M and Yassa, Michael A and Zeineh, Michael M}},
  issn         = {{1095-9572}},
  keywords     = {{Adult; Clinical Protocols/standards; Hippocampus/anatomy & histology; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods; Parahippocampal Gyrus/anatomy & histology}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{05}},
  pages        = {{41--526}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{NeuroImage}},
  title        = {{Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI : towards a harmonized segmentation protocol}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004}},
  volume       = {{111}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}