Dataset Information

Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol.

ABSTRACT: 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.MRI 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.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Yushkevich PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4387011 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol.

Yushkevich Paul A PA Amaral Robert S C RS Augustinack Jean C JC Bender Andrew R AR Bernstein Jeffrey D JD Boccardi Marina M Bocchetta Martina M Burggren Alison C AC Carr Valerie A VA Chakravarty M Mallar MM Chételat Gaël G Daugherty Ana M AM Davachi Lila L Ding Song-Lin SL Ekstrom Arne A Geerlings Mirjam I MI Hassan Abdul A Huang Yushan Y Iglesias J Eugenio JE La Joie Renaud R Kerchner Geoffrey A GA LaRocque Karen F KF Libby Laura A LA Malykhin Nikolai N Mueller Susanne G SG Olsen Rosanna K RK Palombo Daniela J DJ Parekh Mansi B MB Pluta John B JB Preston Alison R AR Pruessner Jens C JC Ranganath Charan C Raz Naftali N Schlichting Margaret L ML Schoemaker Dorothee D Singh Sachi S Stark Craig E L CE Suthana Nanthia N Tompary Alexa A Turowski Marta M MM Van Leemput Koen K Wagner Anthony D AD Wang Lei L Winterburn Julie L JL Wisse Laura E M LE Yassa Michael A MA Zeineh Michael M MM

NeuroImage 20150114

<h4>Objective</h4>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 hipp ...[more]

PMID: 25596463

Similar Datasets

Project description:In patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), presurgical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often reveals hippocampal atrophy, while neuropathological assessment indicates the different types of hippocampal sclerosis (HS). Different HS types are not discriminated in MRI so far. We aimed to define the volume of each hippocampal subfield on MRI manually and to compare automatic and manual segmentations for the discrimination of HS types. The T2-weighted images from 14 formalin-fixed age-matched control hippocampi were obtained with 4.7T MRI to evaluate the volume of each subfield at the anatomical level of the hippocampal head, body, and tail. Formalin-fixed coronal sections at the level of the body of 14 control cases, as well as tissue samples from 24 TLE patients, were imaged with a similar high-resolution sequence at 3T. Presurgical three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted images from TLE went through a FreeSurfer 6.0 hippocampal subfield automatic assessment. The manual delineation with the 4.7T MRI was identified using Luxol Fast Blue stained 10-μm-thin microscopy slides, collected at every millimeter. An additional section at the level of the body from controls and TLE cases was submitted to NeuN immunohistochemistry for neuronal density estimation. All TLE cases were classified according to the International League Against Epilepsy's (ILAE's) HS classification. Manual volumetry in controls revealed that the dentate gyrus (DG)+CA4 region, CA1, and subiculum accounted for almost 90% of the hippocampal volume. The manual 3T volumetry showed that all TLE patients with type 1 HS (TLE-HS1) had lower volumes for DG+CA4, CA2, and CA1, whereas those TLE patients with HS type 2 (TLE-HS2) had lower volumes only in CA1 (p ≤ 0.038). Neuronal cell densities always decreased in CA4, CA3, CA2, and CA1 of TLE-HS1 but only in CA1 of TLE-HS2 (p ≤ 0.003). In addition, TLE-HS2 had a higher volume (p = 0.016) and higher neuronal density (p < 0.001) than the TLE-HS1 in DG + CA4. Automatic segmentation failed to match the manual or histological findings and was unable to differentiate TLE-HS1 from TLE-HS2. Total hippocampal volume correlated with DG+CA4 and CA1 volumes and neuronal density. For the first time, we also identified subfield-specific pathology patterns in the manual evaluation of volumetric MRI scans, showing the importance of manual segmentation to assess subfield-specific pathology patterns.

Project description:Two variants of semantic dementia are recognized based on the laterality of temporal lobe involvement: a left-predominant variant associated with verbal knowledge impairment and a right-predominant variant associated with behavioural changes and non-verbal knowledge loss. This cross-sectional clinicoradiologic study aimed to assess whole hippocampal, subregion, and/or subfield volume loss in semantic dementia versus controls and across its variants. Thirty-five semantic dementia participants and 15 controls from the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic who had completed 3.0-T volumetric magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography were included. Classification as left-predominant (n = 25) or right-predominant (n = 10) variant was based on temporal lobe hypometabolism. Volumes of hippocampal subregions (head, body, and tail) and subfields (parasubiculum, presubiculum, subiculum, cornu ammonis 1, cornu ammonis 3, cornu ammonis 4, dentate gyrus, molecular layer, hippocampal-amygdaloid transition area, and fimbria) were obtained using FreeSurfer 7. Subfield volumes were measured separately from head and body subregions. We fit linear mixed-effects models using log-transformed whole hippocampal/subregion/subfield volumes as dependent variables; age, sex, total intracranial volume, hemisphere and a group-by-hemisphere interaction as fixed effects; and subregion/subfield nested within hemisphere as a random effect. Significant results (P < 0.05) are hereby reported. At the whole hippocampal level, the dominant (predominantly involved) hemisphere of both variants showed 23-27% smaller volumes than controls. The non-dominant (less involved) hemisphere of the right-predominant variant also showed volume loss versus controls and the left-predominant variant. At the subregional level, both variants showed 17-28% smaller dominant hemisphere head, body, and tail than controls, with the right-predominant variant also showing 8-12% smaller non-dominant hemisphere head than controls and left-predominant variant. At the subfield level, the left-predominant variant showed 12-36% smaller volumes across all dominant hemisphere subfields and 14-15% smaller non-dominant hemisphere parasubiculum, presubiculum (head and body), subiculum (head) and hippocampal-amygdaloid transition area than controls. The right-predominant variant showed 16-49% smaller volumes across all dominant hemisphere subfields and 14-22% smaller parasubiculum, presubiculum, subiculum, cornu ammonis 3, hippocampal-amygdaloid transition area (all from the head) and fimbria of non-dominant hemisphere versus controls. Comparison of dominant hemispheres showed 16-29% smaller volumes of the parasubiculum, presubiculum (head) and fimbria in the right-predominant than left-predominant variant; comparison of non-dominant hemispheres showed 12-15% smaller cornu ammonis 3, cornu ammonis 4, dentate gyrus, hippocampal-amygdaloid transition area (all from the head) and cornu ammonis 1, cornu ammonis 3 and cornu ammonis 4 (all from the body) in the right-predominant variant. All hippocampal subregion/subfield volumes are affected in semantic dementia, although some are more affected in both dominant and non-dominant hemispheres of the right-predominant than the left-predominant variant by the time of presentation. Involvement of hippocampal structures is apparently more subregion dependent than subfield dependent, indicating possible superiority of subregion volumes as disease biomarkers.

Project description:Recently, there has been a growing effort to analyze the morphometry of hippocampal subfields using both in vivo and postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, given that boundaries between subregions of the hippocampal formation (HF) are conventionally defined on the basis of microscopic features that often lack discernible signature in MRI, subfield delineation in MRI literature has largely relied on heuristic geometric rules, the validity of which with respect to the underlying anatomy is largely unknown. The development and evaluation of such rules are challenged by the limited availability of data linking MRI appearance to microscopic hippocampal anatomy, particularly in three dimensions (3D). The present paper, for the first time, demonstrates the feasibility of labeling hippocampal subfields in a high resolution volumetric MRI dataset based directly on microscopic features extracted from histology. It uses a combination of computational techniques and manual post-processing to map subfield boundaries from a stack of histology images (obtained with 200?m spacing and 5?m slice thickness; stained using the Kluver-Barrera method) onto a postmortem 9.4Tesla MRI scan of the intact, whole hippocampal formation acquired with 160?m isotropic resolution. The histology reconstruction procedure consists of sequential application of a graph-theoretic slice stacking algorithm that mitigates the effects of distorted slices, followed by iterative affine and diffeomorphic co-registration to postmortem MRI scans of approximately 1cm-thick tissue sub-blocks acquired with 200?m isotropic resolution. These 1cm blocks are subsequently co-registered to the MRI of the whole HF. Reconstruction accuracy is evaluated as the average displacement error between boundaries manually delineated in both the histology and MRI following the sequential stages of reconstruction. The methods presented and evaluated in this single-subject study can potentially be applied to multiple hippocampal tissue samples in order to construct a histologically informed MRI atlas of the hippocampal formation.

Dataset Information

Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol.

Publications

Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets