Cited by 107Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

In vivo Analysis of Hippocampal Subfield Atrophy in Mild Cognitive Impairment via Semi-Automatic Segmentation of T2-Weighted MRI

Open access
Pluta, John, Yushkevich, Paul, Das, Sandhitsu, Wolk, David·2012·Journal of Alzheimer's Disease

Abstract

The measurement of hippocampal volumes using MRI is a useful in-vivo biomarker for detection and monitoring of early Alzheimer's disease (AD), including during the amnestic mild cognitive impairment (a-MCI) stage. The pathology underlying AD has regionally selective effects within the hippocampus. As such, we predict that hippocampal subfields are more sensitive in discriminating prodromal AD (i.e., a-MCI) from cognitively normal controls than whole hippocampal volumes, and attempt to demonstrate this using a semi-automatic method that can accurately segment hippocampal subfields. High-resolution coronal-oblique T2-weighted images of the hippocampal formation were acquired in 45 subjects (28 controls and 17 a-MCI (mean age: 69.5 ± 9.2; 70.2 ± 7.6)). CA1, CA2, CA3, and CA4/DG subfields, along with head and tail regions, were segmented using an automatic algorithm. CA1 and CA4/DG segmentations were manually edited. Whole hippocampal volumes were obtained from the subjects' T1-weighted anatomical images. Automatic segmentation produced significant group differences in the following subfields: CA1 (left: p = 0.001, right: p = 0.038), CA4/DG (left: p = 0.002, right: p = 0.043), head (left: p = 0.018, right: p = 0.002), and tail (left: p = 0.019). After manual correction, differences were increased in CA1 (left: p < 0.001, right: p = 0.002), and reduced in CA4/DG (left: p = 0.029, right: p = 0.221). Whole hippocampal volumes significantly differed bilaterally (left: p = 0.028, right: p = 0.009). This pattern of atrophy in a-MCI is consistent with the topography of AD pathology observed in postmortem studies, and corrected left CA1 provided stronger discrimination than whole hippocampal volume (p = 0.03). These results suggest that semi-automatic segmentation of hippocampal subfields is efficient and may provide additional sensitivity beyond whole hippocampal volumes.

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 · 10.3233/jad-2012-111931

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Literature on individuals with MCI is more controversial, with discrepant data resulting from adoption of the same subfield segmentation procedure.

    “Analogous literature on individuals with MCI is still more controversial, with discrepant data resulting from adoption of the same subfield segmentation procedure.”
  • The volume of the subiculum was reported to be normal in MCI in a manual segmentation study and an automated segmentation study but significantly reduced in two other studies using manual or automated segmentation.

    “Thus, for example, the volume of the subiculum was reported to be normal in MCI in a study that relied on manual segmentation [35] and in another study that used an automated segmentation method [38] but was significantly reduced in two other studies that also used a method of manual [39] or automated segmentation [40].”
  • Discrepancies exist as regards to the area of largest difference between HC and aMCI patients, probably reflecting variations in the anatomical landmarks used for subfield delineation.

    “However, discrepancies exist as regards to the area of largest difference between HC and aMCI patients (CA1 (Pluta et al., 2012), CA1–CA2 transition area (Mueller et al., 2010) or subiculum (Hanseeuw, 2011), probably reflecting variations in the anatomical landmarks used for subfield delineation”
  • Subfield measurements were more accurate than global hippocampal volumetry to differentiate aMCI from HC.

    “we showed that subfield measurements were more accurate than global hippocampal volumetry to differentiate aMCI from HC”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [8]Jack CR Petersen RC Xu Y O’Brien PC Smith GE Ivnik RJ Boeve BF Tangalos EG Kokemon E 2000 Rates of hippocampal atrophy correlate with change in clinical status in aging and AD Neurology 55 484 489 10953178 PMC2724764
  2. [20]Amaral D Lavenex P Andersen P Morris R Amaral D Bliss T O’Keefe J 2007 Hippocampal neuroanatomy The hippocampus book Oxford University Press New York 37 129
  3. [46]Morra J Tu Z Apostolova L Green A Avedissian C Madsen S Parishak N Hua X Toga A Jack C Jr 2009 Automated 3D mapping of hippocampal atrophy and its clinical correlates in 400 subjects with Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and elderly controls Hum Brain Mapp 30 2766 2788 19172649 PMC2733926

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pluta, J., Yushkevich, P., Das, S., & Wolk, D.
Affiliations
  • Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Pluta, John
Venue
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Published
2012-07-05
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
85-99
ISSN
  • 1387-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8908
OpenAlex
W1508239224
Cited by
107
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
11.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P30AG010124, R01AG037376, K23AG028018, K25AG027785)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
hippocampal atrophy
MeSH terms
Atrophy, Electronic Data Processing, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, ROC Curve, Chi-Square Distribution, Case-Control Studies, Area Under Curve, 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