ArticleArXiv2025
Automatic rating of incomplete hippocampal inversions evaluated across multiple cohorts.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Incomplete Hippocampal Inversion (IHI), sometimes called hippocampal malrotation, is an atypical anatomical pattern of the hippocampus found in about 20% of the general population. IHI can be visually assessed on coronal slices of T1 weighted MR images, using a composite score that combines four anatomical criteria. IHI has been associated with several brain disorders (epilepsy, schizophrenia). However, these studies were based on small samples. Furthermore, the factors (genetic or environmental) that contribute to the genesis of IHI are largely unknown. Large-scale studies are thus needed to further understand IHI and their potential relationships to neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, visual evaluation is long and tedious, justifying the need for an automatic method. In this paper, we propose, for the first time, to automatically rate IHI. We proceed by predicting four anatomical criteria, which are then summed up to form the IHI score, providing the advantage of an interpretable score. We provided an extensive experimental investigation of different machine learning methods and training strategies. We performed automatic rating using a variety of deep learning models ("conv5-FC3", ResNet and "SECNN") as well as a ridge regression. We studied the generalization of our models using different cohorts and performed multi-cohort learning. We relied on a large population of 2,008 participants from the IMAGEN study, 993 and 403 participants from the QTIM and QTAB studies as well as 985 subjects from the UKBiobank. We showed that deep learning models outperformed a ridge regression. We demonstrated that the performances of the "conv5-FC3" network were at least as good as more complex networks while maintaining a low complexity and computation time. We showed that training on a single cohort may lack in variability while training on several cohorts improves generalization (acceptable performances on all tested cohorts including some that are not included in training). The trained models are available at https://github.com/LisaHemforth/AutomaticIHIRating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39148932PMC11326423What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.