↓ Skip to main content

Heritability and reliability of automatically segmented human hippocampal formation subregions

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Heritability and reliability of automatically segmented human hippocampal formation subregions
Published in
NeuroImage, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher D. Whelan, Derrek P. Hibar, Laura S. van Velzen, Anthony S. Zannas, Tania Carrillo-Roa, Katie McMahon, Gautam Prasad, Sinéad Kelly, Joshua Faskowitz, Greig deZubiracay, Juan E. Iglesias, Theo G.M. van Erp, Thomas Frodl, Nicholas G. Martin, Margaret J. Wright, Neda Jahanshad, Lianne Schmaal, Philipp G. Sämann, Paul M. Thompson, for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract

The human hippocampal formation can be divided into a set of cytoarchitecturally and functionally distinct subregions, involved in different aspects of memory formation. Neuroanatomical disruptions within these subregions are associated with several debilitating brain disorders including Alzheimer's disease, major depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Multi-center brain imaging consortia, such as the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium, are interested in studying disease effects on these subregions, and in the genetic factors that affect them. For large-scale studies, automated extraction and subsequent genomic association studies of these hippocampal subregion measures may provide additional insight. Here, we evaluated the test-retest reliability and transplatform reliability (1.5T versus 3T) of the subregion segmentation module in the FreeSurfer software package using three independent cohorts of healthy adults, one young (Queensland Twins Imaging Study, N=39), another elderly (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, ADNI-2, N=163) and another mixed cohort of healthy and depressed participants (Max Planck Institute, MPIP, N=598). We also investigated agreement between the most recent version of this algorithm (v6.0) and an older version (v5.3), again using the ADNI-2 and MPIP cohorts in addition to a sample from the Netherlands Study for Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) (N=221). Finally, we estimated the heritability (h(2)) of the segmented subregion volumes using the full sample of young, healthy QTIM twins (N=728). Test-retest reliability was high for all twelve subregions in the 3T ADNI-2 sample (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.70-0.97) and moderate-to-high in the 4T QTIM sample (ICC=0.5-0.89). Transplatform reliability was strong for eleven of the twelve subregions (ICC=0.66-0.96); however, the hippocampal fissure was not consistently reconstructed across 1.5T and 3T field strengths (ICC=0.47-0.57). Between-version agreement was moderate for the hippocampal tail, subiculum and presubiculum (ICC=0.78-0.84; Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC)=0.55-0.70), and poor for all other subregions (ICC=0.34-0.81; DSC=0.28-0.51). All hippocampal subregion volumes were highly heritable (h(2)=0.67-0.91). Our findings indicate that eleven of the twelve human hippocampal subregions segmented using FreeSurfer version 6.0 may serve as reliable and informative quantitative phenotypes for future multi-site imaging genetics initiatives such as those of the ENIGMA consortium.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 20%
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Master 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 18%
Neuroscience 35 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Engineering 7 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 56 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,204,100
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#1,688
of 12,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,619
of 399,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#20
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.