Journal Article

A (sub)field guide to quality control in hippocampal subfield segmentation on high‐resolution T2‐weighted MRI

Canada, Kelsey L., Raz, Naftali, Bocchetta, Martina, Baumeister, Hannah, Flores, Robin, Adams, Jenna N., Yushkevich, Paul A., Bakker, Arnold, Rådman, Gustaf, Keresztes, Attila, Mueller, Susanne G., Stark, Craig E. L., Dalton, Marshall A., Wuestefeld, Anika, Shaw, Thomas, Santini, Tales, Carr, Valerie A., Berron, David, La Joie, Renaud, Wisse, Laura E. M., Olsen, Rosanna K., Wang, Lei, Tran, Tammy T., Daugherty, Ana M., Mazloum‐Farzaghi, Negar

2024

Overview

Inquiries into properties of brain structure and function have progressed due to developments in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). To sustain progress in investigating and quantifying neuroanatomical details in vivo, the reliability and validity of brain measurements are paramount. Quality control (QC) is a set of procedures for mitigating errors and ensuring the validity and reliability of brain measurements. Despite its importance, there is little guidance on best QC practices and reporting procedures. The study of hippocampal subfields in vivo is a critical case for QC because of their small size, inter‐dependent boundary definitions, and common artifacts in the MRI data used for subfield measurements. We addressed this gap by surveying the broader scientific community studying hippocampal subfields on their views and approaches to QC. We received responses from 37 investigators spanning 10 countries, covering different career stages, and studying both healthy and pathological development and aging. In this sample, 81% of researchers considered QC to be very important or important, and 19% viewed it as fairly important. Despite this, only 46% of researchers reported on their QC processes in prior publications. In many instances, lack of reporting appeared due to ambiguous guidance on relevant details and guidance for reporting, rather than absence of QC. Here, we provide recommendations for correcting errors to maximize reliability and minimize bias. We also summarize threats to segmentation accuracy, review common QC methods, and make recommendations for best practices and reporting in publications. Implementing the recommended QC practices will collectively improve inferences to the larger population, as well as have implications for clinical practice and public health. Illustration of the quality control (QC) process and investigator‐guided decision making for data quality. Green checkmarks indicate passed QC, while red cross marks indicate failed QC.

• Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
• Subject: Best practice / best practices / Brain / Brain architecture / Brain research / Careers / Clinical Medicine / Data integrity / Errors / Functional anatomy / hippocampal subfields / Hippocampus / Image processing / Image segmentation / In vivo methods and tests / Klinisk medicin / Magnetic properties / Magnetic resonance imaging / Medical and Health Sciences / Medicin och hälsovetenskap / MRI / Neuroimaging / Neurologi / Neurology / Polls & surveys / Public health / Quality control / Quality standards / Radiologi och bildbehandling / Radiology and Medical Imaging / Reliability / Reproducibility / Segmentation / Structure-function relationships / Validity