Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: Towards 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 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.

Direct brain recordings reveal hippocampal rhythm underpinnings of language processing

“…To elucidate the functional role of the theta oscillations in our The location of the contacts are shown: entorhinal cortex (EC), hippocampus proper (H), perirhinal cortex (PC), parahippocampal cortex (PH), and subiculum (SB). For the significant contacts, the subfield in which it is located is given in parentheses, as determined by a neurologist based on a hippocampal subfield atlas (17). When the bipolar contact comprises two different subfields, both are indicated.…”

Hippocampal subfield segmentation in temporal lobe epilepsy: Relation to outcomes

“…Some boundaries between structures might not be easily delineated given that some interfaces could not be detected in the training data 45. Patients received individual epilepsy surgery as clinically indicated, for example, with a trans‐sylvian (~50%) or subtemporal (~50%) access to the pathologic hippocampus, which was then removed in sections (trans‐sylvian) or in its entirety (subtemporal).…”

Seven-Tesla MRI and neuroimaging biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease

“…96 A challenge of examining hippocampal subfields is that imaging-based segmentation schemes are quite variable without a ground truth. 99 The demarcation between the hippocampal CA fields and the subiculum, for instance, can be quite variable in a way that is difficult to capture with in vivo imaging (Fig. 3).…”