Quantitative Comparison of 21 Protocols for Labeling Hippocampal Subfields and Parahippocampal Cortical Subregions in In Vivo MRI: Towards Developing a Harmonized Segmentation Protocol.

Paul A. Yushkevich, Robert S.C. Amaral, Jean C. Augustinack, Andrew R. Bender, Jeffrey D. Bernstein, Marina Boccardi, Martina Bocchetta, Alison C. Burggren, Valerie A. Carr, M. Mallar Chakravarty, Koen Van Leemput

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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 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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalNeuroImage
Volume111
Pages (from-to)526-541
ISSN1053-8119
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Keywords

  • Hippocampus
  • Medial temporal lobe
  • Hippocampal subfields
  • CA1
  • CA2
  • CA3
  • Dentate gyrus
  • Subiculum
  • Entorhinal cortex
  • Perirhinal cortex
  • Parahippocampal gyrus
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Segmentation
  • Unified protocol

Cite this

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. ; Chakravarty, M. Mallar ; Van Leemput, Koen. / Quantitative Comparison of 21 Protocols for Labeling Hippocampal Subfields and Parahippocampal Cortical Subregions in In Vivo MRI: Towards Developing a Harmonized Segmentation Protocol. In: NeuroImage. 2015 ; Vol. 111. pp. 526-541.
@article{3b8ee94ce6394f24a522b16ad150f7ee,
title = "Quantitative Comparison of 21 Protocols for Labeling Hippocampal Subfields and Parahippocampal Cortical Subregions in In Vivo MRI: Towards Developing a Harmonized Segmentation Protocol.",
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 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.",
keywords = "Hippocampus, Medial temporal lobe, Hippocampal subfields, CA1, CA2, CA3, Dentate gyrus, Subiculum, Entorhinal cortex, Perirhinal cortex, Parahippocampal gyrus, Magnetic resonance imaging, Segmentation, Unified protocol",
author = "Yushkevich, {Paul A.} and Amaral, {Robert S.C.} and Augustinack, {Jean C.} and Bender, {Andrew R.} and Bernstein, {Jeffrey D.} and Marina Boccardi and Martina Bocchetta and Burggren, {Alison C.} and Carr, {Valerie A.} and Chakravarty, {M. Mallar} and {Van Leemput}, Koen",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004",
language = "English",
volume = "111",
pages = "526--541",
journal = "NeuroImage",
issn = "1053-8119",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Yushkevich, PA, Amaral, RSC, Augustinack, JC, Bender, AR, Bernstein, JD, Boccardi, M, Bocchetta, M, Burggren, AC, Carr, VA, Chakravarty, MM & Van Leemput, K 2015, 'Quantitative Comparison of 21 Protocols for Labeling Hippocampal Subfields and Parahippocampal Cortical Subregions in In Vivo MRI: Towards Developing a Harmonized Segmentation Protocol.', NeuroImage, vol. 111, pp. 526-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004

Quantitative Comparison of 21 Protocols for Labeling Hippocampal Subfields and Parahippocampal Cortical Subregions in In Vivo MRI: Towards Developing 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. ; Chakravarty, M. Mallar ; Van Leemput, Koen.

In: NeuroImage, Vol. 111, 2015, p. 526-541.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative Comparison of 21 Protocols for Labeling Hippocampal Subfields and Parahippocampal Cortical Subregions in In Vivo MRI: Towards Developing a Harmonized Segmentation Protocol.

AU - Yushkevich, Paul A.

AU - Amaral, Robert S.C.

AU - Augustinack, Jean C.

AU - Bender, Andrew R.

AU - Bernstein, Jeffrey D.

AU - Boccardi, Marina

AU - Bocchetta, Martina

AU - Burggren, Alison C.

AU - Carr, Valerie A.

AU - Chakravarty, M. Mallar

AU - Van Leemput, Koen

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Hippocampus

KW - Medial temporal lobe

KW - Hippocampal subfields

KW - CA1

KW - CA2

KW - CA3

KW - Dentate gyrus

KW - Subiculum

KW - Entorhinal cortex

KW - Perirhinal cortex

KW - Parahippocampal gyrus

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Segmentation

KW - Unified protocol

U2 - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004

DO - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004

M3 - Journal article

VL - 111

SP - 526

EP - 541

JO - NeuroImage

JF - NeuroImage

SN - 1053-8119

ER -