Cited by 41Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchRetinal Imaging and Analysis

A comparison of accurate automatic hippocampal segmentation methods

Open access
Zandifar, Azar, Fonov, Vladimir, Coupé, Pierrick, Pruessner, Jens, Collins, D. Louis·2017·NeuroImage

Abstract

The hippocampus is one of the first brain structures affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD). While many automatic methods for hippocampal segmentation exist, few studies have compared them on the same data. In this study, we compare four fully automated hippocampal segmentation methods in terms of their conformity with manual segmentation and their ability to be used as an AD biomarker in clinical settings. We also apply error correction to the four automatic segmentation methods, and complete a comprehensive validation to investigate differences between the methods. The effect size and classification performance is measured for AD versus normal control (NC) groups and for stable mild cognitive impairment (sMCI) versus progressive mild cognitive impairment (pMCI) groups. Our study shows that the nonlinear patch-based segmentation method with error correction is the most accurate automatic segmentation method and yields the most conformity with manual segmentation (κ=0.894). The largest effect size between AD versus NC and sMCI versus pMCI is produced by FreeSurfer with error correction. We further show that, using only hippocampal volume, age, and sex as features, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve reaches up to 0.8813 for AD versus NC and 0.6451 for sMCI versus pMCI. However, the automatic segmentation methods are not significantly different in their performance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.018

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High number of Freesurfer exclusions based on detailed visual verification of individual ROIs was previously reported.

    “High number of Freesurfer exclusions based on detailed visual verification of individual ROIs was previously reported (Mccarthy 2015; Zandifar et al., 2017).”

    From A comparison of Freesurfer and multi-atlas MUSE for brain anatomy segmentation: Findings about size and age bias, and inter-scanner stability in multi-site aging studies (2020) · cites this paper as Zandifar et al., 2017

    Experiment 2: results (p. 5) says FreeSurfer had the largest number of segmentation failures, and Limitations (p. 9) reports 101 subjects for whom the FreeSurfer pipeline could not estimate hippocampal volume. The paper says subjects were included only if they passed quality control, but it does not say the FreeSurfer exclusions resulted from detailed visual verification of individual ROIs. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Coupé, P., Yger, P., Prima, S., Hellier, P., Kervrann, C., Barillot, C., 2008. An optimized blockwise nonlocal means denoising fi lter for 3-d magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 27, 425 -441.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zandifar, A., Fonov, V., Coupé, P., Pruessner, J., & Collins, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
  • McGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging (CA)
Corresponding author
Collins, D. Louis
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
155
Pages
383-393
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2604915122
Cited by
41
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-111169)
  • Fonds de Research Santé Québec Pfizer Innovation fund (25262)
  • NSERC CREATE (4140438 - 2012)
  • Famille Louise & André Charron
  • Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)
  • National Institutes of Health (U01 AG024904)
  • DOD ADNI
  • Department of Defense (W81XWH-12-2-0012)
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • AbbVie
  • Alzheimer's Association
  • Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
  • Araclon Biotech
  • BioClinica, Inc.
  • Biogen
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  • CereSpir, Inc.
  • Cogstate
  • Eisai, Inc.
  • Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • EuroImmun
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company
  • Genentech, Inc.
  • Fujirebio
  • GE Healthcare
  • IXICO Ltd.
  • Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.
  • Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC.
  • Lumosity
  • Lundbeck
  • Merck & Co., Inc.
  • Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.
  • NeuroRx Research
  • Neurotrack Technologies
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  • Pfizer, Inc.
  • Piramal Imaging
  • Servier
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
  • Transition Therapeutics
  • ADNI clinical sites in Canada
  • Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
  • ministére de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Québec (MESI)
  • Fonds de recherche du Québec - Nature et technologies (FRQ-NT)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
hippocampus segmentation, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, automatic segmentation, FreeSurfer, error correction, hippocampal volume, Alzheimer's disease biomarkers, method comparison
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Cognitive Dysfunction

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