Erhard Næss-Schmidt1,2, Anna Tietze3,4, Jakob Udby Blicher3, Mikkel Petersen3, Irene K Mikkelsen3, Pierrick Coupé5, José V Manjón6, Simon Fristed Eskildsen3. 1. Hammel Neurorehabilitation Centre and University Research Clinic, Aarhus University, Voldbyvej 15, 8460, Hammel, Denmark. erhnae@rm.dk. 2. Hammel Neurorehabilitation Centre and University Research Clinic, Voldbyvej 15, 8460, Hammel, Denmark. erhnae@rm.dk. 3. Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience and MINDLab, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique, Unité Mixte de Recherche CNRS (UMR 5800), PICTURA Research Group, 351, cours de la Libération, 33405, Talence cedex, France. 6. Instituto de Aplicaciones de las Tecnologías de la Información y de las Comunicaciones Avanzadas (ITACA), Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In both structural and functional MRI, there is a need for accurate and reliable automatic segmentation of brain regions. Inconsistent segmentation reduces sensitivity and may bias results in clinical studies. The current study compares the performance of publicly available segmentation tools and their impact on diffusion quantification, emphasizing the importance of using recently developed segmentation algorithms and imaging techniques. METHODS: Four publicly available, automatic segmentation methods (volBrain, FSL, FreeSurfer and SPM) are compared to manual segmentation of the thalamus and hippocampus imaged with a recently proposed T1-weighted MRI sequence (MP2RAGE). We evaluate morphometric accuracy on 22 healthy subjects and impact on diffusivity measurements obtained from aligned diffusion-weighted images on a subset of 10 subjects. RESULTS: Compared to manual segmentation, the highest Dice similarity index of the thalamus is obtained with volBrain using a local library ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) followed by volBrain using an external library ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FSL ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FreeSurfer ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and SPM ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). The same order is found for hippocampus with volBrain local ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), volBrain external ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FSL ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FreeSurfer ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and SPM ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). For diffusivity measurements, volBrain provides values closest to those obtained from manual segmentations. volBrain is the only method where FA values do not differ significantly from manual segmentation of the thalamus. CONCLUSIONS: Overall we find that volBrain is superior in thalamus and hippocampus segmentation compared to FSL, FreeSurfer and SPM. Furthermore, the choice of segmentation technique and training library affects quantitative results from diffusivity measures in thalamus and hippocampus.
PURPOSE: In both structural and functional MRI, there is a need for accurate and reliable automatic segmentation of brain regions. Inconsistent segmentation reduces sensitivity and may bias results in clinical studies. The current study compares the performance of publicly available segmentation tools and their impact on diffusion quantification, emphasizing the importance of using recently developed segmentation algorithms and imaging techniques. METHODS: Four publicly available, automatic segmentation methods (volBrain, FSL, FreeSurfer and SPM) are compared to manual segmentation of the thalamus and hippocampus imaged with a recently proposed T1-weighted MRI sequence (MP2RAGE). We evaluate morphometric accuracy on 22 healthy subjects and impact on diffusivity measurements obtained from aligned diffusion-weighted images on a subset of 10 subjects. RESULTS: Compared to manual segmentation, the highest Dice similarity index of the thalamus is obtained with volBrain using a local library ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) followed by volBrain using an external library ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FSL ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FreeSurfer ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and SPM ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). The same order is found for hippocampus with volBrain local ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), volBrain external ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FSL ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), FreeSurfer ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and SPM ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). For diffusivity measurements, volBrain provides values closest to those obtained from manual segmentations. volBrain is the only method where FA values do not differ significantly from manual segmentation of the thalamus. CONCLUSIONS: Overall we find that volBrain is superior in thalamus and hippocampus segmentation compared to FSL, FreeSurfer and SPM. Furthermore, the choice of segmentation technique and training library affects quantitative results from diffusivity measures in thalamus and hippocampus.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Simon F Eskildsen; Pierrick Coupé; Vladimir Fonov; José V Manjón; Kelvin K Leung; Nicolas Guizard; Shafik N Wassef; Lasse Riis Østergaard; D Louis Collins Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Giovanni B Frisoni; Clifford R Jack; Martina Bocchetta; Corinna Bauer; Kristian S Frederiksen; Yawu Liu; Gregory Preboske; Tim Swihart; Melanie Blair; Enrica Cavedo; Michel J Grothe; Mariangela Lanfredi; Oliver Martinez; Masami Nishikawa; Marileen Portegies; Travis Stoub; Chadwich Ward; Liana G Apostolova; Rossana Ganzola; Dominik Wolf; Frederik Barkhof; George Bartzokis; Charles DeCarli; John G Csernansky; Leyla deToledo-Morrell; Mirjam I Geerlings; Jeffrey Kaye; Ronald J Killiany; Stephane Lehéricy; Hiroshi Matsuda; John O'Brien; Lisa C Silbert; Philip Scheltens; Hilkka Soininen; Stefan Teipel; Gunhild Waldemar; Andreas Fellgiebel; Josephine Barnes; Michael Firbank; Lotte Gerritsen; Wouter Henneman; Nikolai Malykhin; Jens C Pruessner; Lei Wang; Craig Watson; Henrike Wolf; Mony deLeon; Johannes Pantel; Clarissa Ferrari; Paolo Bosco; Patrizio Pasqualetti; Simon Duchesne; Henri Duvernoy; Marina Boccardi Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Maria F Falangola; Jens H Jensen; Ali Tabesh; Caixia Hu; Rachael L Deardorff; James S Babb; Steven Ferris; Joseph A Helpern Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kyoko Fujimoto; Jonathan R Polimeni; André J W van der Kouwe; Martin Reuter; Tobias Kober; Thomas Benner; Bruce Fischl; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christian Hoffmann; Luitpold Distel; Stefan Knippen; Thomas Gryc; Manuel Alexander Schmidt; Rainer Fietkau; Florian Putz Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Manuel A Schmidt; Michael Knott; Robin Heidemann; Georg Michelson; Tobias Kober; Arnd Dörfler; Tobias Engelhorn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Soyoung Kim; Deanna J Greene; Carolina Badke D'Andrea; Emily C Bihun; Jonathan M Koller; Bridget O'Reilly; Bradley L Schlaggar; Kevin J Black Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Peter N Hadar; Lohith G Kini; Carlos Coto; Virginie Piskin; Lauren E Callans; Stephanie H Chen; Joel M Stein; Sandhitsu R Das; Paul A Yushkevich; Kathryn A Davis Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.881