The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: Towards a harmonized segmentation protocol
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888
Pruessner, J. C. (2000) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/10.4.433 · Cited by 706
Self-citationTeicher, M. H., Anderson, C. M., & Polcari, A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1115396109 · Cited by 639
Hippocampal neurons in pre-clinical Alzheimer's disease.
West, M. J., Kawas, C. H., Stewart, W. F., Rudow, G. L., & Troncoso, J. C. (2004) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2003.12.005 · Cited by 317 · cited 1×
“Different psychiatric and neurological disorders are known to affect hippocampal subfields and MTL cortical subregions differently, selectively, and in a complex progression (Braak & Braak, 1995; Arnold et al., 1995; Simić et al., 1997; de Lanerolle et al., 2003; West et al., 2004; Lucassen et al., 2006; Small et al.,…”
BackgroundLa Joie, R., Perrotin, A., de La Sayette, V., Egret, S., Doeuvre, L., Belliard, S., Eustache, F., Desgranges, B., & Chételat, G. (2013) · NeuroImage: Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2013.08.007 · Cited by 290
Self-citationWang, L., Swank, J. S., Glick, I. E., Gado, M. H., Miller, M. I., Morris, J. C., & Csernansky, J. G. (2003) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00361-6 · Cited by 263
Self-citationSelective effect of age, Apo e4, and Alzheimer's disease on hippocampal subfields
Mueller, S. G., & Weiner, M. W. (2009) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.20614 · Cited by 248 · cited 1×
“…authors' earlier work that has influenced several other participants: several studies cite as their sources earlier papers by Mueller et al. (2007), Mueller & Weiner (2009), Zeineh et al. (2000, 2001, 2003), Pruessner et al. (2000, 2002), Olsen et al. (2009, 2013), Malykhin et al. (2007, 2010),…”
ResultSelf-citationHippocampal CA1 apical neuropil atrophy in mild Alzheimer disease visualized with 7-T MRI
Kerchner, G. A., Hess, C. P., Hammond-Rosenbluth, K. E., Xu, D., Rabinovici, G. D., Kelley, D. A. C., Vigneron, D. B., Nelson, S. J., & Miller, B. L. (2010) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181f736a1 · Cited by 193
Self-citationHippocampal CA1 apical neuropil atrophy and memory performance in Alzheimer's disease
Kerchner, G. A., Deutsch, G. K., Zeineh, M., Dougherty, R. F., Saranathan, M., & Rutt, B. K. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.048 · Cited by 181
Self-citation
Cited by
Topographic organization of the human subcortex unveiled with functional connectivity gradients
Tian, Y., Margulies, D. S., Breakspear, M., & Zalesky, A. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-020-00711-6 · Cited by 784
Anterior hippocampus: the anatomy of perception, imagination and episodic memory
Zeidman, P., & Maguire, E. A. (2016) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2015.24 · Cited by 542
A high-resolution probabilistic in vivo atlas of human subcortical brain nuclei
Pauli, W. M., Nili, A. N., & Tyszka, J. M. (2018) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.63 · Cited by 517
Neuroimaging biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease.
Márquez, F., & Yassa, M. A. (2019) · Molecular Neurodegeneration · doi:10.1186/s13024-019-0325-5 · Cited by 289
Self-citationRoddy, D. W., Farrell, C., Doolin, K., Roman, E., Tozzi, L., Frodl, T., O’Keane, V., & O’Hanlon, E. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.08.021 · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Yushkevich, P. A., Amaral, R. S. C., Augustinack, J. C., Bender, A. R., Bernstein, J. D., Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Burggren, A. C., Carr, V. A., Chakravarty, M. M., Chételat, G., Daugherty, A. M., Davachi, L., Ding, S.-L., Ekstrom, A., Geerlings, M. I., Hassan, A., Huang, Y., Iglesias, J. E., La Joie, R., Kerchner, G. A., LaRocque, K. F., Libby, L. A., Malykhin, N., Mueller, S. G., Olsen, R. K., Palombo, D. J., Parekh, M. B., Pluta, J. B., Preston, A. R., Pruessner, J. C., Ranganath, C., Raz, N., Schlichting, M. L., Schoemaker, D., Singh, S., Stark, C. E. L., Suthana, N., Tompary, A., Turowski, M. M., Van Leemput, K., Wagner, A. D., Wang, L., Winterburn, J. L., Wisse, L. E. M., Yassa, M. A., & Zeineh, M. M.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-05
- Volume
- 111
- Pages
- 526-541
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165570456
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 33.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: Towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004
- The paper
- Yushkevich, P. A., Amaral, R. S. C., Augustinack, J. C., Bender, A. R., Bernstein, J. D., Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Burggren, A. C., Carr, V. A., Chakravarty, M. M., Chételat, G., Daugherty, A. M., Davachi, L., Ding, S.-L., Ekstrom, A., Geerlings, M. I., Hassan, A., Huang, Y., Iglesias, J. E., . . . Zeineh, M. M. (2015). Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: Towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
