AbstractPurposePrecise segmentation of brain lesions is essential for neurological research. Specifically, resection volume estimates can aid in the assessment of residual postoperative tissue, e.g. following surgery for glioma. Furthermore, behavioral lesion-symptom mapping in epilepsy relies on accurate delineation of surgical lesions. We sought to determine whether semi- and fully automatic segmentation methods can be applied to resected brain areas and which approach provides the most accurate and cost-efficient results.MethodsWe compared a semi-automatic (ITK-SNAP) with a fully automatic (lesion_GNB) method for segmentation of resected brain areas in terms of accuracy with manual segmentation serving as reference. Additionally, we evaluated processing times of all three methods. We used T1w, MRI-data of epilepsy patients (n = 27; 11 m; mean age 39 years, range 16–69) who underwent temporal lobe resections (17 left).ResultsThe semi-automatic approach yielded superior accuracy (p < 0.001) with a median Dice similarity coefficient (mDSC) of 0.78 and a median average Hausdorff distance (maHD) of 0.44 compared with the fully automatic approach (mDSC 0.58, maHD 1.32). There was no significant difference between the median percent volume difference of the two approaches (p > 0.05). Manual segmentation required more human input (30.41 min/subject) and therefore inferring significantly higher costs than semi- (3.27 min/subject) or fully automatic approaches (labor and cost approaching zero).ConclusionSemi-automatic segmentation offers the most accurate results in resected brain areas with a moderate amount of human input, thus representing a viable alternative compared with manual segmentation, especially for studies with large patient cohorts.