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 Tesla and 7 Tesla. 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.

No abstract

Background An international Delphi panel has defined a harmonized protocol (HarP) for the manual segmentation of the hippocampus on MR. The aim of this study is to study the concurrent validity of the HarP toward local protocols, and its major sources of variance. Methods Fourteen tracers segmented 10 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cases scanned at 1.5 T and 3T following local protocols, qualified for segmentation based on the HarP through a standard web-platform and resegmented following the HarP. The five most accurate tracers followed the HarP to segment 15 ADNI cases acquired at three time points on both 1.5 T and 3T. Results The agreement among tracers was relatively low with the local protocols (absolute left/right ICC 0.44/0.43) and much higher with the HarP (absolute left/right ICC 0.88/0.89). On the larger set of 15 cases, the HarP agreement within (left/right ICC range: 0.94/0.95 to 0.99/0.99) and among tracers (left/right ICC range: 0.89/0.90) was very high. The volume variance due to different tracers was 0.9% of the total, comparing favorably to variance due to scanner manufacturer (1.2), atrophy rates (3.5), hemispheric asymmetry (3.7), field strength (4.4), and significantly smaller than the variance due to atrophy (33.5%, P < .001), and physiological variability (49.2%, P < .001). Conclusions The HarP has high measurement stability compared with local segmentation protocols, and good reproducibility within and among human tracers. Hippocampi segmented with the HarP can be used as a reference for the qualification of human tracers and automated segmentation algorithms.

Manual segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MR) is the gold standard for evaluating hippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nonetheless, different segmentation protocols provide up to 2.5-fold volume differences. Here we surveyed the most frequently used segmentation protocols in the AD literature as a preliminary step for international harmonization. The anatomical landmarks (anteriormost and posteriormost slices, superior, inferior, medial, and lateral borders) were identified from 12 published protocols for hippocampal manual segmentation ([Abbreviation] first author, publication year: [B] Bartzokis, 1998; [C] Convit, 1997; [dTM] deToledo-Morrell, 2004; [H] Haller, 1997; [J] Jack, 1994; [K] Killiany, 1993; [L] Lehericy, 1994; [M] Malykhin, 2007; [Pa] Pantel, 2000; [Pr] Pruessner, 2000; [S] Soininen, 1994; [W] Watson, 1992). The hippocampi of one healthy control and one AD patient taken from the 1.5T MR ADNI database were segmented by a single rater according to each protocol. The accuracy of the protocols’ interpretation and translation into practice was checked with lead authors of protocols through individual interactive web conferences. Semantically harmonized landmarks and differences were then extracted, regarding: (a) the posteriormost slice, protocol [B] being the most restrictive, and [H, M, Pa, Pr, S] the most inclusive; (b) inclusion [C, dTM, J, L, M, Pr, W] or exclusion [B, H, K, Pa, S] of alveus/fimbria; (c) separation from the parahippocampal gyrus, [C] being the most restrictive, [B, dTM, H, J, Pa, S] the most inclusive. There were no substantial differences in the definition of the anteriormost slice. This survey will allow us to operationalize differences among protocols into tracing units, measure their impact on the repeatability and diagnostic accuracy of manual hippocampal segmentation, and finally develop a harmonized protocol.

Background This study aimed to have international experts converge on a harmonized definition of whole hippocampus boundaries and segmentation procedures, to define standard operating procedures for magnetic resonance (MR)-based manual hippocampal segmentation. Methods The panel received a questionnaire regarding whole hippocampus boundaries and segmentation procedures. Quantitative information was supplied to allow evidence-based answers. A recursive and anonymous Delphi procedure was used to achieve convergence. Significance of agreement among panelists was assessed by exact probability on Fisher’s and binomial tests. Results Agreement was significant on the inclusion of alveus/fimbria (P =.021), whole hippocampal tail (P =.013), medial border of the body according to visible morphology (P =.0006), and on this combined set of features (P =.001). This definition captures 100% of hippocampal tissue, 100% of Alzheimer’s disease-related atrophy, and demonstrated good reliability on preliminary intrarater (0.98) and inter-rater (0.94) estimates. Discussion Consensus was achieved among international experts with respect to hippocampal segmentation using MR resulting in a harmonized segmentation protocol.

No abstract

ET might slow down age-related gray matter loss in postmenopausal women. The structures that exhibited greater volume in association with ET included the cerebellar and cerebral cortices and, typically involved in Alzheimer's disease, the medial temporal structures and the temporoparietal junction.

This work provides reference hippocampal labels for the training and certification of automated segmentation algorithms. The publicly released labels will allow the widespread implementation of the standard segmentation protocol.