ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Evaluating Traditional, Deep Learning and Subfield Methods for Automatically Segmenting the Hippocampus From MRI.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based cognitive impairment brain imaging analysis: New methods, new technologies, and new paradigms.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Comparing deep learning CNN method with traditional MRI-based hippocampal segmentation and volumetry for early Alzheimer's disease diagnosis across diverse populations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intensity-Based Assessment of Hippocampal Segmentation Algorithms Using Paired Precontrast and Postcontrast MRI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- From Big Data to the Clinic: Methodological and Statistical Enhancements to Implement the UK Biobank Imaging Framework in a Memory Clinic.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- An edge-aware salient context fusion and refinement network for hippocampal segmentation in MR images and its diagnostic value for mild cognitive impairment.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Given the relationship between hippocampal atrophy and cognitive impairment in various pathological conditions, hippocampus segmentation from MRI is an important task in neuroimaging. Manual segmentation, though considered the gold standard, is time-consuming and error-prone, leading to the development of numerous automatic segmentation methods. However, no study has yet independently compared the performance of traditional, deep learning-based and hippocampal subfield segmentation methods within a single investigation. We evaluated 10 automatic hippocampal segmentation methods (FreeSurfer, SynthSeg, FastSurfer, FIRST, e2dhipseg, Hippmapper, Hippodeep, FreeSurfer-Subfields, HippUnfold and HSF) across 3 datasets with manually segmented hippocampus labels. Performance metrics included overlap with manual labels, correlations between manual and automatic volumes, volume similarity, diagnostic group differentiation and systematically located false positives and negatives. Most methods, especially deep learning-based ones that were trained on manual labels, performed well on public datasets but showed more error and variability on clinical data. Many methods tended to over-segment, particularly at the anterior hippocampus border, but were able to distinguish between healthy controls, MCI, and dementia patients based on hippocampal volume. Our findings highlight the challenges in hippocampal segmentation from MRI and the need for more publicly accessible datasets with manual labels across diverse ages and pathological conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.