Automatic rating of incomplete hippocampal inversions evaluated across multiple cohorts

📅 2024-07-30
🏛️ Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the time-consuming, non-scalable nature of manual assessment of incomplete hippocampal inversion (IHI). We propose the first fully automated, interpretable IHI quantification framework. Methodologically, we leverage T1-weighted coronal MRI to jointly predict four anatomical metrics—hippocampal curvature, sulcal depth, collateral sulcus continuity, and temporal horn morphology—and aggregate them into a composite IHI score. A lightweight Conv5-FC3 architecture is employed, integrated with ridge regression and multi-cohort transfer learning, achieving robust cross-site generalization across 4,400+ samples from IMAGEN, QTIM, QTAB, and UK Biobank. Key contributions include: (1) the first generalizable, fully automated IHI scoring system; (2) an interpretable, four-metric decomposition paradigm for IHI prediction; and (3) empirical validation that multi-center collaborative training critically enhances model robustness. The code and trained models will be publicly released.

Technology Category

Application Category

📝 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 will be made publicly available should the manuscript be accepted.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

Automated Assessment
Hippocampal Inversion Incomplete (IHI)
Mental Disorders
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

Automatic Hippocampal Inversion Incompleteness Assessment
Deep Learning Models
Generalization Improvement
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
L
Lisa Hemforth
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France
B
B. Couvy-Duchesne
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France; Institute for Molecular Bioscience, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia
K
Kevin De Matos
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France
C
Camille Brianceau
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France
M
Matthieu Joulot
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France
T
T. Banaschewski
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, 68159, Germany
A
A. Bokde
Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
S
S. Desrivières
Centre for Population Neuroscience and Precision Medicine (PONS), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, SGDP Centre, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
H
Herta Flor
Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, 68159, Germany; Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, 68131, Germany
A
A. Grigis
NeuroSpin, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Hugh Garavan
Hugh Garavan
Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, 05405, USA
P
P. Gowland
Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom
A
A. Heinz
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy CCM, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin
R
Rudiger Bruhl
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy CCM, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin
J
J. Martinot
Inserm U991, Neuroimaging & Psychiatry, CHU Robert Debré, F-75019, Paris, France; INSERM U1144, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
M
Marie-Laure Paillere Martinot
Inserm U991, Neuroimaging & Psychiatry, CHU Robert Debré, F-75019, Paris, France; INSERM U1144, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
E
Eric Artiges
Inserm U991, Neuroimaging & Psychiatry, CHU Robert Debré, F-75019, Paris, France; INSERM U1144, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
D
D. Papadopoulos
NeuroSpin, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
H
Herve Lemaitre
NeuroSpin, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
T
Tomas Paus
IMAGEN study group
L
Luise Poustka
IMAGEN study group
S
Sarah Hohmann
IMAGEN study group
N
Nathalie E. Holz
IMAGEN study group
J
Juliane H. Frohner
IMAGEN study group
M
Michael N. Smolka
IMAGEN study group
N
N. Vaidya
IMAGEN study group
H
H. Walter
IMAGEN study group
Robert Whelan
Robert Whelan
IMAGEN study group
Gunter Schumann
Gunter Schumann
IMAGEN study group
C
Christian Buchel
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
JB Poline
JB Poline
MNI, McGill University and UC Berkeley
NeuroinformaticsBiostatistics for Brain imagingfMRIImaging genetics
B
Bernd Itterman
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy CCM, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin
V
V. Frouin
NeuroSpin, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Alexandre Martin
Alexandre Martin
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France
I
IMAGEN study group
IMAGEN study group
C
C. Cury
University of Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Inserm, IRISA UMR 6074, Empenn ERL U-1228, Rennes, 35000, France
O
O. Colliot
Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau – Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HP, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013, Paris, France