Literature DB >> 27864083

Robust skull stripping using multiple MR image contrasts insensitive to pathology.

Snehashis Roy1, John A Butman2, Dzung L Pham3.   

Abstract

Automatic skull-stripping or brain extraction of magnetic resonance (MR) images is often a fundamental step in many neuroimage processing pipelines. The accuracy of subsequent image processing relies on the accuracy of the skull-stripping. Although many automated stripping methods have been proposed in the past, it is still an active area of research particularly in the context of brain pathology. Most stripping methods are validated on T1-w MR images of normal brains, especially because high resolution T1-w sequences are widely acquired and ground truth manual brain mask segmentations are publicly available for normal brains. However, different MR acquisition protocols can provide complementary information about the brain tissues, which can be exploited for better distinction between brain, cerebrospinal fluid, and unwanted tissues such as skull, dura, marrow, or fat. This is especially true in the presence of pathology, where hemorrhages or other types of lesions can have similar intensities as skull in a T1-w image. In this paper, we propose a sparse patch based Multi-cONtrast brain STRipping method (MONSTR),2 where non-local patch information from one or more atlases, which contain multiple MR sequences and reference delineations of brain masks, are combined to generate a target brain mask. We compared MONSTR with four state-of-the-art, publicly available methods: BEaST, SPECTRE, ROBEX, and OptiBET. We evaluated the performance of these methods on 6 datasets consisting of both healthy subjects and patients with various pathologies. Three datasets (ADNI, MRBrainS, NAMIC) are publicly available, consisting of 44 healthy volunteers and 10 patients with schizophrenia. Other three in-house datasets, comprising 87 subjects in total, consisted of patients with mild to severe traumatic brain injury, brain tumors, and various movement disorders. A combination of T1-w, T2-w were used to skull-strip these datasets. We show significant improvement in stripping over the competing methods on both healthy and pathological brains. We also show that our multi-contrast framework is robust and maintains accurate performance across different types of acquisitions and scanners, even when using normal brains as atlases to strip pathological brains, demonstrating that our algorithm is applicable even when reference segmentations of pathological brains are not available to be used as atlases.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atlas; Brain extraction; Non-local; Patches; Segmentation; Skull stripping; Sparsity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27864083      PMCID: PMC5321800          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.017

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


  59 in total

1.  Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation.

Authors:  Simon K Warfield; Kelly H Zou; William M Wells
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  An accurate skull stripping method based on simplex meshes and histogram analysis for magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Francisco J Galdames; Fabrice Jaillet; Claudio A Perez
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 2.390

3.  Nonlocal regularization for active appearance model: Application to medial temporal lobe segmentation.

Authors:  Shiyan Hu; Pierrick Coupé; Jens C Pruessner; D Louis Collins
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Is synthesizing MRI contrast useful for inter-modality analysis?

Authors:  Juan Eugenio Iglesias; Ender Konukoglu; Darko Zikic; Ben Glocker; Koen Van Leemput; Bruce Fischl
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2013

5.  Magnetic Resonance Image Example-Based Contrast Synthesis.

Authors:  Snehashis Roy; Aaron Carass; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  MARGA: multispectral adaptive region growing algorithm for brain extraction on axial MRI.

Authors:  Eloy Roura; Arnau Oliver; Mariano Cabezas; Joan C Vilanova; Alex Rovira; Lluís Ramió-Torrentà; Xavier Lladó
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  MR CONTRAST SYNTHESIS FOR LESION SEGMENTATION.

Authors:  Snehashis Roy; Aaron Carass; Navid Shiee; Dzung L Pham; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2010-06-21

8.  Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neurodegenerative brain.

Authors:  B B Avants; C L Epstein; M Grossman; J C Gee
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2007-06-23       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  Quantitative comparison of four brain extraction algorithms.

Authors:  Kristi Boesen; Kelly Rehm; Kirt Schaper; Sarah Stoltzner; Roger Woods; Eileen Lüders; David Rottenberg
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  MRI superresolution using self-similarity and image priors.

Authors:  José V Manjón; Pierrick Coupé; Antonio Buades; D Louis Collins; Montserrat Robles
Journal:  Int J Biomed Imaging       Date:  2010-12-08
View more
  32 in total

1.  Applications of a deep learning method for anti-aliasing and super-resolution in MRI.

Authors:  Can Zhao; Muhan Shao; Aaron Carass; Hao Li; Blake E Dewey; Lotta M Ellingsen; Jonghye Woo; Michael A Guttman; Ari M Blitz; Maureen Stone; Peter A Calabresi; Henry Halperin; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Automated Segmentation of Tissues Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-08-10       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  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

4.  In vivo estimates of axonal stretch and 3D brain deformation during mild head impact.

Authors:  Andrew K Knutsen; Arnold D Gomez; Mihika Gangolli; Wen-Tung Wang; Deva Chan; Yuan-Chiao Lu; Eftychios Christoforou; Jerry L Prince; Philip V Bayly; John A Butman; Dzung L Pham
Journal:  Brain Multiphys       Date:  2020-09-03

5.  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

6.  Quantitative assessment of field strength, total intracranial volume, sex, and age effects on the goodness of harmonization for volumetric analysis on the ADNI database.

Authors:  Da Ma; Karteek Popuri; Mahadev Bhalla; Oshin Sangha; Donghuan Lu; Jiguo Cao; Claudia Jacova; Lei Wang; Mirza Faisal Beg
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Automatic falx cerebri and tentorium cerebelli segmentation from Magnetic Resonance Images.

Authors:  Jeffrey Glaister; Aaron Carass; Dzung L Pham; John A Butman; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03-13

8.  DeepHarmony: A deep learning approach to contrast harmonization across scanner changes.

Authors:  Blake E Dewey; Can Zhao; Jacob C Reinhold; Aaron Carass; Kathryn C Fitzgerald; Elias S Sotirchos; Shiv Saidha; Jiwon Oh; Dzung L Pham; Peter A Calabresi; Peter C M van Zijl; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 2.546

9.  Bayesian convolutional neural network based MRI brain extraction on nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Gengyan Zhao; Fang Liu; Jonathan A Oler; Mary E Meyerand; Ned H Kalin; Rasmus M Birn
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Time course and diagnostic utility of NfL, tau, GFAP, and UCH-L1 in subacute and chronic TBI.

Authors:  Pashtun Shahim; Adam Politis; Andre van der Merwe; Brian Moore; Vindhya Ekanayake; Sara M Lippa; Yi-Yu Chou; Dzung L Pham; John A Butman; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Jessica M Gill; David L Brody; Leighton Chan
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 9.910

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.