Evaluating Traditional, Deep Learning, and Subfield Methods for Automatically Segmenting the Hippocampus from MRI

Sabrina Sghirripa, Gaurav Bhalerao, Ludovica Griffanti, Grace Gillis, Clare E Mackay, Natalie Voets, Stephanie Wong, Mark Jenkinson
{"title":"Evaluating Traditional, Deep Learning, and Subfield Methods for Automatically Segmenting the Hippocampus from MRI","authors":"Sabrina Sghirripa, Gaurav Bhalerao, Ludovica Griffanti, Grace Gillis, Clare E Mackay, Natalie Voets, Stephanie Wong, Mark Jenkinson","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.06.24311530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the relationship between hippocampal atrophy and cognitive impairment in various pathological conditions, hippocampus segmentation from MRI is an important task in neuroimaging. Manual segmentation, though considered the gold standard, is time-consuming and error-prone, leading to the development of numerous automatic segmentation methods. However, no study has yet independently compared the performance of traditional, deep learning-based, and hippocampal subfield segmentation methods within a single investigation. We evaluated nine automatic hippocampal segmentation methods (FreeSurfer, FastSurfer, FIRST, e2dhipseg, HippMapper, Hippodeep, FreeSurfer-Subfields, HippUnfold and HSF) across three datasets with manually segmented hippocampus labels. Performance metrics included overlap with manual labels, correlations between manual and automatic volumes, diagnostic group differentiation, and systematically located false positives and negatives. Most methods, especially deep learning-based ones, performed well on public datasets but showed more error and variability on unseen data. Many methods tended to over-segment, particularly at the anterior hippocampus border, but were able to distinguish between healthy controls, MCI, and dementia patients based on hippocampal volume. Our findings highlight the challenges in hippocampal segmentation from MRI and the need for more publicly accessible datasets with manual labels across diverse ages and pathological conditions.","PeriodicalId":501358,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Radiology and Imaging","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.06.24311530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the relationship between hippocampal atrophy and cognitive impairment in various pathological conditions, hippocampus segmentation from MRI is an important task in neuroimaging. Manual segmentation, though considered the gold standard, is time-consuming and error-prone, leading to the development of numerous automatic segmentation methods. However, no study has yet independently compared the performance of traditional, deep learning-based, and hippocampal subfield segmentation methods within a single investigation. We evaluated nine automatic hippocampal segmentation methods (FreeSurfer, FastSurfer, FIRST, e2dhipseg, HippMapper, Hippodeep, FreeSurfer-Subfields, HippUnfold and HSF) across three datasets with manually segmented hippocampus labels. Performance metrics included overlap with manual labels, correlations between manual and automatic volumes, diagnostic group differentiation, and systematically located false positives and negatives. Most methods, especially deep learning-based ones, performed well on public datasets but showed more error and variability on unseen data. Many methods tended to over-segment, particularly at the anterior hippocampus border, but were able to distinguish between healthy controls, MCI, and dementia patients based on hippocampal volume. Our findings highlight the challenges in hippocampal segmentation from MRI and the need for more publicly accessible datasets with manual labels across diverse ages and pathological conditions.
评估从核磁共振成像中自动分割海马体的传统方法、深度学习方法和子场方法
鉴于海马体萎缩与各种病理情况下认知障碍之间的关系,从核磁共振成像中分割海马体是神经影像学中的一项重要任务。手动分割虽然被认为是黄金标准,但费时且容易出错,因此人们开发了许多自动分割方法。然而,还没有研究在一次调查中独立比较过传统方法、基于深度学习的方法和海马子场分割方法的性能。我们在三个带有人工分割海马标签的数据集上评估了九种自动海马分割方法(FreeSurfer、FastSurfer、FIRST、e2dhipseg、HippMapper、Hippodeep、FreeSurfer-Subfields、HippUnfold 和 HSF)。性能指标包括与人工标签的重叠、人工体积与自动体积的相关性、诊断组别区分以及系统定位的假阳性和假阴性。大多数方法,尤其是基于深度学习的方法,在公共数据集上表现良好,但在未见数据上则表现出更大的误差和可变性。许多方法倾向于过度分割,尤其是在海马前部边界,但能够根据海马体积区分健康对照组、MCI 和痴呆症患者。我们的研究结果凸显了从核磁共振成像中进行海马分割所面临的挑战,以及在不同年龄和病理条件下需要更多可公开访问的带有手动标签的数据集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信