Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Frontiers in Neurosc...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Frontiers in Neuroscience
2016 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Frontiers
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Manual-Protocol Inspired Technique for Improving Automated MR Image Segmentation during Label Fusion

Authors: Bhagwat, Nikhil; Pipitone, Jon; Winterburn, Julie L.; Guo, Ting; Duerden, Emma G.; Voineskos, Aristotle N.; Lepage, Martin; +3 Authors

Manual-Protocol Inspired Technique for Improving Automated MR Image Segmentation during Label Fusion

Abstract

Recent advances in multi-atlas based algorithms address many of the previous limitations in model-based and probabilistic segmentation methods. However, at the label fusion stage, a majority of algorithms focus primarily on optimizing weight-maps associated with the atlas library based on a theoretical objective function that approximates the segmentation error. In contrast, we propose a novel method—Autocorrecting Walks over Localized Markov Random Fields (AWoL-MRF)—that aims at mimicking the sequential process of manual segmentation, which is the gold-standard for virtually all the segmentation methods. AWoL-MRF begins with a set of candidate labels generated by a multi-atlas segmentation pipeline as an initial label distribution and refines low confidence regions based on a localized Markov random field (L-MRF) model using a novel sequential inference process (walks). We show that AWoL-MRF produces state-of-the-art results with superior accuracy and robustness with a small atlas library compared to existing methods. We validate the proposed approach by performing hippocampal segmentations on three independent datasets: (1) Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Database (ADNI); (2) First Episode Psychosis patient cohort; and (3) A cohort of preterm neonates scanned early in life and at term-equivalent age. We assess the improvement in the performance qualitatively as well as quantitatively by comparing AWoL-MRF with majority vote, STAPLE, and Joint Label Fusion methods. AWoL-MRF reaches a maximum accuracy of 0.881 (dataset 1), 0.897 (dataset 2), and 0.807 (dataset 3) based on Dice similarity coefficient metric, offering significant performance improvements with a smaller atlas library (< 10) over compared methods. We also evaluate the diagnostic utility of AWoL-MRF by analyzing the volume differences per disease category in the ADNI1: Complete Screening dataset. We have made the source code for AWoL-MRF public at: https://github.com/CobraLab/AWoL-MRF.

Keywords

first-episode-psychosis, MR Imaging, hippocampus, premature birth and neonates, multi-atlas label fusion, segmentation, Alzheimer's disease, Neuroscience

64 references, page 1 of 7

Aisen P. S. Petersen R. C. Donohue M. C. Gamst A. Raman R. Thomas R. G. . (2010). Clinical core of the Alzheimers Disease neuroimaging initiative: progress and plans. Alzheimers Dement. 6, 239–246. 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.03.006 26194312 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Akhondi-Asl A. Warfield S. K. (2012). Estimation of the prior distribution of ground truth in the STAPLE algorithm: an empirical bayesian approach. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. 15, 593–600. 10.1007/978-3-642-33415-3_73 23285600 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Aljabar P. Heckemann R. A. Hammers A. Hajnal J. V. Rueckert D. (2009). Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: atlas selection and its effect on accuracy. Neuroimage 46, 726–738. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.018 19245840 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Barnes J. Boyes R. G. Lewis E. B. Schott J. M. Frost C. Scahill R. I. . (2007). Automatic calculation of hippocampal atrophy rates using a hippocampal template and the boundary shift integral. Neurobiol. Aging. 28, 1657–1663. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.07.008 16934913 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Bland J. M. Altman D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327, 307–310. 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 2868172 [PubMed] [DOI]

Boccardi M. Bocchetta M. Ganzola R. Robitaille N. Redolfi A. Duchesne S. . (2015). Operationalizing protocol differences for EADC-ADNI manual hippocampal segmentation. Alzheimers Dement. 11, 184–194. 10.1016/j.jalz.2013.03.001 23706515 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Chakravarty M. M. Sadikot A. F. Germann J. Bertrand G. Collins D. L. (2008). Towards a validation of atlas warping techniques. Med. Image Anal. 12, 713–726. 10.1016/j.media.2008.04.003 18640867 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Chakravarty M. M. Sadikot A. F. Germann J. Hellier P. Bertrand G. Collins D. L. (2009). Comparison of piece-wise linear, linear, and non linear atlas-to-patient warping techniques: analysis of the labeling of subcortical nuclei for functional neurosurgical applications. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 3574–3595. 10.1002/hbm.20780 19387981 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Chakravarty M. M. Steadman P. van Eede M. C. Calcott R. D. Gu V. Shaw P. . (2013). Performing label fusion-based segmentation using multiple automatically generated templates. Hum. Brain Mapp. 34, 2635–2654. 10.1002/hbm.22092 22611030 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Collins D. L. Holmes C. J. Peters T. M. Evans A. C. (1995). Automatic 3-D model-based neuroanatomical segmentation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 3, 190–208. 10.1002/hbm.460030304 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
  • citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    Powered byBIP!BIP!
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average