Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40143669›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2025

Evaluating Traditional, Deep Learning and Subfield Methods for Automatically Segmenting the Hippocampus From MRI.

Sabrina Sghirripa, Gaurav Bhalerao, Ludovica Griffanti, Grace Gillis, Clare Mackay, Natalie Voets, Stephanie Wong, Mark Jenkinson, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sabrina SghirripaAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0275-1476
Gaurav BhaleraoWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ludovica GriffantiWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0540-9353
Grace GillisOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6123-3647
Clare MackayOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Natalie VoetsWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8078-4471
Stephanie WongCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Mark JenkinsonAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

Project 1U19AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI MONICA G. RIVERA-MINDT · 2016 to 2026
$226.7M
National Health and Medical Research Council 2023947NIA NIH HHS U19 AG024904NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre NIHR203316Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging 203139/A/16/ZWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging 203139/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Cognitive DysfunctionDeep LearningDementiaHippocampusImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedhippocampusMRIneuroimagingsegmentation

Identifiers

PMID40143669
PMCPMC11947432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.