Skip to main content
Journal cover image

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

Publication ,  Journal Article
Yushkevich, PA; Amaral, RSC; Augustinack, JC; Bender, AR; Bernstein, JD; Boccardi, M; Bocchetta, M; Burggren, AC; Carr, VA; Chakravarty, MM ...
Published in: Neuroimage
May 1, 2015

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.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Neuroimage

DOI

EISSN

1095-9572

Publication Date

May 1, 2015

Volume

111

Start / End Page

526 / 541

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Parahippocampal Gyrus
  • Neurology & Neurosurgery
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
  • Humans
  • Hippocampus
  • Clinical Protocols
  • Adult
  • 42 Health sciences
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Yushkevich, P. A., Amaral, R. S. C., Augustinack, J. C., Bender, A. R., Bernstein, J. D., Boccardi, M., … Hippocampal Subfields Group (HSG). (2015). Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. Neuroimage, 111, 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004
Yushkevich, Paul A., Robert S. C. Amaral, Jean C. Augustinack, Andrew R. Bender, Jeffrey D. Bernstein, Marina Boccardi, Martina Bocchetta, et al. “Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol.Neuroimage 111 (May 1, 2015): 526–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004.
Yushkevich PA, Amaral RSC, Augustinack JC, Bender AR, Bernstein JD, Boccardi M, et al. Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. Neuroimage. 2015 May 1;111:526–41.
Yushkevich, Paul A., et al. “Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol.Neuroimage, vol. 111, May 2015, pp. 526–41. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004.
Yushkevich PA, Amaral RSC, Augustinack JC, Bender AR, Bernstein JD, Boccardi M, Bocchetta M, Burggren AC, Carr VA, Chakravarty MM, Chételat G, Daugherty AM, Davachi L, Ding S-L, Ekstrom A, Geerlings MI, Hassan A, Huang Y, Iglesias JE, La Joie R, Kerchner GA, LaRocque KF, Libby LA, Malykhin N, Mueller SG, Olsen RK, Palombo DJ, Parekh MB, Pluta JB, Preston AR, Pruessner JC, Ranganath C, Raz N, Schlichting ML, Schoemaker D, Singh S, Stark CEL, Suthana N, Tompary A, Turowski MM, Van Leemput K, Wagner AD, Wang L, Winterburn JL, Wisse LEM, Yassa MA, Zeineh MM, Hippocampal Subfields Group (HSG). Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. Neuroimage. 2015 May 1;111:526–541.
Journal cover image

Published In

Neuroimage

DOI

EISSN

1095-9572

Publication Date

May 1, 2015

Volume

111

Start / End Page

526 / 541

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Parahippocampal Gyrus
  • Neurology & Neurosurgery
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
  • Humans
  • Hippocampus
  • Clinical Protocols
  • Adult
  • 42 Health sciences
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences