• Paul A Yushkevich, Robert S C Amaral, Jean C Augustinack, Andrew R Bender, Jeffrey D Bernstein, Marina Boccardi, Martina Bocchetta, Alison C Burggren, Valerie A Carr, Chakravarty M Mallar MM Cerebral Imaging Centre, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, Department of Biomedical, Gaël Chételat, Ana M Daugherty, Lila Davachi, Song-Lin Ding, Arne Ekstrom, Mirjam I Geerlings, Abdul Hassan, Yushan Huang, J Eugenio Iglesias, La Joie Renaud R INSERM U1077, Universitè de Caen Basse-Normandie, UMR-S1077, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, CHU de Caen, U1077, Caen, France., Geoffrey A Kerchner, Karen F LaRocque, Laura A Libby, Nikolai Malykhin, Susanne G Mueller, Rosanna K Olsen, Daniela J Palombo, Mansi B Parekh, John B Pluta, Alison R Preston, Jens C Pruessner, Charan Ranganath, Naftali Raz, Margaret L Schlichting, Dorothee Schoemaker, Sachi Singh, Craig E L Stark, Nanthia Suthana, Alexa Tompary, Marta M Turowski, Koen Van Leemput, Anthony D Wagner, Lei Wang, Julie L Winterburn, Laura E M Wisse, Michael A Yassa, Michael M Zeineh, and Hippocampal Subfields Group (HSG).
• Penn Image Computing and Science Laboratory, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, USA. Electronic address: pauly2@upenn.edu.
• Neuroimage. 2015 May 1; 111: 526-41.

ObjectiveAn 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.MethodMRI scans of a single healthy adult human subject were acquired both at 3 T and 7 T. 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…