Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: Application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI
Iglesias JE, Augustinack JC, Nguyen K, Player CM, Player A, Wright M, Roy N, Frosch MP et al.. NeuroImage, 2015-04-29
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Automated analysis of MRI data of the subregions of the hippocampus requires computational atlases built at a higher resolution than those that are typically used in current neuroimaging studies. Here we describe the construction of a statistical atlas of the hippocampal formation at the subregion level using ultra-high resolution, ex vivo MRI. Fifteen autopsy samples were scanned at 0.13 mm isotropic resolution (on average) using customized hardware. The images were manually segmented into 13 different hippocampal substructures using a protocol specifically designed for this study; precise delineations were made possible by the extraordinary resolution of the scans. In addition to the subregions, manual annotations for neighboring structures (e.g., amygdala, cortex) were obtained from a separate dataset of in vivo, T1-weighted MRI scans of the whole brain (1mm resolution). The manual labels from the in vivo and ex vivo data were combined into a single computational atlas of the hippocampal formation with a novel atlas building algorithm based on Bayesian inference. The resulting atlas can be used to automatically segment the hippocampal subregions in structural MRI images, using an algorithm that can analyze multimodal data and adapt to variations in MRI contrast due to differences in acquisition hardware or pulse sequences. The applicability of the atlas, which we are releasing as part of FreeSurfer (version 6.0), is demonstrated with experiments on three different publicly available datasets with different types of MRI contrast. The results show that the atlas and companion segmentation method: 1) can segment T1 and T2 images, as well as their combination, 2) replicate findings on mild cognitive impairment based on high-resolution T2 data, and 3) can discriminate between Alzheimer's disease subjects and elderly controls with 88% accuracy in standard resolution (1mm) T1 data, significantly outperforming the atlas in FreeSurfer version 5.3 (86% accuracy) and classification based on whole hippocampal volume (82% accuracy).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Iglesias, J. E., Augustinack, J. C., Nguyen, K., Player, C. M., Player, A., Wright, M., et al. (2015). A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: Application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.042
Vancouver
Iglesias JE, Augustinack JC, Nguyen K, Player CM, Player A, Wright M, et al. A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: Application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI. NeuroImage. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.042. PMID: 25936807.
BibTeX
@article{iglesias2015-25936807,
author = {Iglesias, J. E. and Augustinack, J. C. and Nguyen, K. and Player, C. M. and Player, A. and Wright, M. and Roy, N. and Frosch, M. P. and others},
title = {{A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: Application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.042},
pmid = {25936807},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.042}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The applicability of the atlas, which we are releasing as part of FreeSurfer (version 6.0), is demonstrated with experiments on three different publicly available datasets with different types of MRI contrast.
- The results show that the atlas and companion segmentation method: 1) can segment T1 and T2 images, as well as their combination, 2) replicate findings on mild cognitive impairment based on high-resolution T2 data, and 3) can discriminate between Alzheimer's disease subjects and elderly controls with 88% accuracy in standard resolution (1mm) T1 data, significantly outperforming the atlas in FreeSurfer version 5.3 (86% accuracy) and classification based on whole hippocampal volume (82% accuracy).
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25936807) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “disorder”
492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.