INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease that the parts of the nervous system through the lesions generated in the white matter of the brain. It brings about disabilities in different organs of the body such as eyes and muscles. Early detection of MS and estimation of its progression are critical for optimal treatment of the disease. METHODS: For diagnosis and treatment evaluation of MS lesions, they may be detected and segmented in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans of the brain. However, due to the large amount of MRI data to be analyzed, manual segmentation of the lesions by clinical experts translates into a very cumbersome and time consuming task. In addition, manual segmentation is subjective and prone to human errors. Several groups have developed computerized methods to detect and segment MS lesions. These methods are not categorized and compared in the past. RESULTS: This paper reviews and compares various MS lesion segmentation methods proposed in recent years. It covers conventional methods like multilevel thresholding and region growing, as well as more recent Bayesian methods that require parameter estimation algorithms. It also covers parameter estimation methods like expectation maximization and adaptive mixture model which are among unsupervised techniques as well as kNN and Parzen window methods that are among supervised techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of knowledge-based methods such as atlas-based approaches with Bayesian methods increases segmentation accuracy. In addition, employing intelligent classifiers like Fuzzy C-Means, Fuzzy Inference Systems, and Artificial Neural Networks reduces misclassified voxels.
INTRODUCTION:Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease that the parts of the nervous system through the lesions generated in the white matter of the brain. It brings about disabilities in different organs of the body such as eyes and muscles. Early detection of MS and estimation of its progression are critical for optimal treatment of the disease. METHODS: For diagnosis and treatment evaluation of MS lesions, they may be detected and segmented in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans of the brain. However, due to the large amount of MRI data to be analyzed, manual segmentation of the lesions by clinical experts translates into a very cumbersome and time consuming task. In addition, manual segmentation is subjective and prone to human errors. Several groups have developed computerized methods to detect and segment MS lesions. These methods are not categorized and compared in the past. RESULTS: This paper reviews and compares various MS lesion segmentation methods proposed in recent years. It covers conventional methods like multilevel thresholding and region growing, as well as more recent Bayesian methods that require parameter estimation algorithms. It also covers parameter estimation methods like expectation maximization and adaptive mixture model which are among unsupervised techniques as well as kNN and Parzen window methods that are among supervised techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of knowledge-based methods such as atlas-based approaches with Bayesian methods increases segmentation accuracy. In addition, employing intelligent classifiers like Fuzzy C-Means, Fuzzy Inference Systems, and Artificial Neural Networks reduces misclassified voxels.
Authors: F B Mohamed; S Vinitski; C F Gonzalez; S H Faro; F A Lublin; R Knobler; J E Gutierrez Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: J Grimaud; M Lai; J Thorpe; P Adeleine; L Wang; G J Barker; D L Plummer; P S Tofts; W I McDonald; D H Miller Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1996 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Zhiqiang Lao; Dinggang Shen; Dengfeng Liu; Abbas F Jawad; Elias R Melhem; Lenore J Launer; R Nick Bryan; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Byung Il Yoo; Jung Jae Lee; Ji Won Han; San Yeo Wool Oh; Eun Young Lee; James R MacFall; Martha E Payne; Tae Hui Kim; Jae Hyoung Kim; Ki Woong Kim Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Emily R Lindemer; David H Salat; Eric E Smith; Khoa Nguyen; Bruce Fischl; Douglas N Greve Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: J van Heerden; D Rawlinson; A M Zhang; R Chakravorty; M A Tacey; P M Desmond; F Gaillard Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Olivier Commowick; Audrey Istace; Michaël Kain; Baptiste Laurent; Florent Leray; Mathieu Simon; Sorina Camarasu Pop; Pascal Girard; Roxana Améli; Jean-Christophe Ferré; Anne Kerbrat; Thomas Tourdias; Frédéric Cervenansky; Tristan Glatard; Jérémy Beaumont; Senan Doyle; Florence Forbes; Jesse Knight; April Khademi; Amirreza Mahbod; Chunliang Wang; Richard McKinley; Franca Wagner; John Muschelli; Elizabeth Sweeney; Eloy Roura; Xavier Lladó; Michel M Santos; Wellington P Santos; Abel G Silva-Filho; Xavier Tomas-Fernandez; Hélène Urien; Isabelle Bloch; Sergi Valverde; Mariano Cabezas; Francisco Javier Vera-Olmos; Norberto Malpica; Charles Guttmann; Sandra Vukusic; Gilles Edan; Michel Dojat; Martin Styner; Simon K Warfield; François Cotton; Christian Barillot Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 4.379