Literature DB >> 21195780

Brain MAPS: an automated, accurate and robust brain extraction technique using a template library.

Kelvin K Leung1, Josephine Barnes, Marc Modat, Gerard R Ridgway, Jonathan W Bartlett, Nick C Fox, Sébastien Ourselin.   

Abstract

Whole brain extraction is an important pre-processing step in neuroimage analysis. Manual or semi-automated brain delineations are labour-intensive and thus not desirable in large studies, meaning that automated techniques are preferable. The accuracy and robustness of automated methods are crucial because human expertise may be required to correct any suboptimal results, which can be very time consuming. We compared the accuracy of four automated brain extraction methods: Brain Extraction Tool (BET), Brain Surface Extractor (BSE), Hybrid Watershed Algorithm (HWA) and a Multi-Atlas Propagation and Segmentation (MAPS) technique we have previously developed for hippocampal segmentation. The four methods were applied to extract whole brains from 682 1.5T and 157 3T T(1)-weighted MR baseline images from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Semi-automated brain segmentations with manual editing and checking were used as the gold-standard to compare with the results. The median Jaccard index of MAPS was higher than HWA, BET and BSE in 1.5T and 3T scans (p<0.05, all tests), and the 1st to 99th centile range of the Jaccard index of MAPS was smaller than HWA, BET and BSE in 1.5T and 3T scans ( p<0.05, all tests). HWA and MAPS were found to be best at including all brain tissues (median false negative rate ≤0.010% for 1.5T scans and ≤0.019% for 3T scans, both methods). The median Jaccard index of MAPS were similar in both 1.5T and 3T scans, whereas those of BET, BSE and HWA were higher in 1.5T scans than 3T scans (p<0.05, all tests). We found that the diagnostic group had a small effect on the median Jaccard index of all four methods. In conclusion, MAPS had relatively high accuracy and low variability compared to HWA, BET and BSE in MR scans with and without atrophy.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21195780      PMCID: PMC3554789          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  41 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance image tissue classification using a partial volume model.

Authors:  D W Shattuck; S R Sandor-Leahy; K A Schaper; D A Rottenberg; R M Leahy
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Evaluation of automated and semi-automated skull-stripping algorithms using similarity index and segmentation error.

Authors:  Jong-Min Lee; Uicheul Yoon; Sang-Hee Nam; Jung-Hyun Kim; In-Young Kim; Sun I Kim
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.589

3.  Analysis and validation of automated skull stripping tools: a validation study based on 296 MR images from the Honolulu Asia aging study.

Authors:  S W Hartley; A I Scher; E S C Korf; L R White; L J Launer
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-01-11       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Brain morphometry with multiecho MPRAGE.

Authors:  André J W van der Kouwe; Thomas Benner; David H Salat; Bruce Fischl
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Combination strategies in multi-atlas image segmentation: application to brain MR data.

Authors:  Xabier Artaechevarria; Arrate Munoz-Barrutia; Carlos Ortiz-de-Solorzano
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: atlas selection and its effect on accuracy.

Authors:  P Aljabar; R A Heckemann; A Hammers; J V Hajnal; D Rueckert
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Compensation for surface coil sensitivity variation in magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  P A Narayana; W W Brey; M V Kulkarni; C L Sievenpiper
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1988 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.546

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  The Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative.

Authors:  Susanne G Mueller; Michael W Weiner; Leon J Thal; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford Jack; William Jagust; John Q Trojanowski; Arthur W Toga; Laurel Beckett
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Automatic anatomical brain MRI segmentation combining label propagation and decision fusion.

Authors:  Rolf A Heckemann; Joseph V Hajnal; Paul Aljabar; Daniel Rueckert; Alexander Hammers
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-07-24       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  70 in total

Review 1.  The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: a review of papers published since its inception.

Authors:  Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Enchi Liu; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Mark E Schmidt; Leslie Shaw; Judith A Siuciak; Holly Soares; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 21.566

Review 2.  Methods on Skull Stripping of MRI Head Scan Images-a Review.

Authors:  P Kalavathi; V B Surya Prasath
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Local label learning (LLL) for subcortical structure segmentation: application to hippocampus segmentation.

Authors:  Yongfu Hao; Tianyao Wang; Xinqing Zhang; Yunyun Duan; Chunshui Yu; Tianzi Jiang; Yong Fan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Automatic Brain Extraction for Rodent MRI Images.

Authors:  Yikang Liu; Hayreddin Said Unsal; Yi Tao; Nanyin Zhang
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2020-06

5.  State-of-the-Art Traditional to the Machine- and Deep-Learning-Based Skull Stripping Techniques, Models, and Algorithms.

Authors:  Anam Fatima; Ahmad Raza Shahid; Basit Raza; Tahir Mustafa Madni; Uzair Iqbal Janjua
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Presymptomatic atrophy in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease: A serial magnetic resonance imaging study.

Authors:  Kirsi M Kinnunen; David M Cash; Teresa Poole; Chris Frost; Tammie L S Benzinger; R Laila Ahsan; Kelvin K Leung; M Jorge Cardoso; Marc Modat; Ian B Malone; John C Morris; Randall J Bateman; Daniel S Marcus; Alison Goate; Stephen P Salloway; Stephen Correia; Reisa A Sperling; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Richard P Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; Ralph N Martins; Martin R Farlow; Bernardino Ghetti; Andrew J Saykin; Clifford R Jack; Peter R Schofield; Eric McDade; Michael W Weiner; John M Ringman; Paul M Thompson; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe; Martin N Rossor; Sebastien Ourselin; Nick C Fox
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2017-07-22       Impact factor: 21.566

7.  An efficient and accurate method for robust inter-dataset brain extraction and comparisons with 9 other methods.

Authors:  Philip Novosad; D Louis Collins
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  A direct morphometric comparison of five labeling protocols for multi-atlas driven automatic segmentation of the hippocampus in Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Sean M Nestor; Erin Gibson; Fu-Qiang Gao; Alex Kiss; Sandra E Black
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Evolution of hippocampal shapes across the human lifespan.

Authors:  Xianfeng Yang; Alvina Goh; Shen-Hsing Annabel Chen; Anqi Qiu
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Effects of changing from non-accelerated to accelerated MRI for follow-up in brain atrophy measurement.

Authors:  Kelvin K Leung; Ian M Malone; Sebastien Ourselin; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matt A Bernstein; Paul M Thompson; Clifford R Jack; Michael W Weiner; Nick C Fox
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.