Mohsen Ghafoorian1, Nico Karssemeijer2, Inge W M van Uden3, Frank-Erik de Leeuw3, Tom Heskes4, Elena Marchiori4, Bram Platel2. 1. Diagnostic Image Analysis Group, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands and Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen 6525 GA, The Netherlands. 2. Diagnostic Image Analysis Group, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands. 3. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525 EN, The Netherlands. 4. Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen 6525 EC, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are seen on FLAIR-MRI in several neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis, dementia, Parkinsonism, stroke and cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). WMHs are often used as biomarkers for prognosis or disease progression in these diseases, and additionally longitudinal quantification of WMHs is used to evaluate therapeutic strategies. Human readers show considerable disagreement and inconsistency on detection of small lesions. A multitude of automated detection algorithms for WMHs exists, but since most of the current automated approaches are tuned to optimize segmentation performance according to Jaccard or Dice scores, smaller WMHs often go undetected in these approaches. In this paper, the authors propose a method to accurately detect all WMHs, large as well as small. METHODS: A two-stage learning approach was used to discriminate WMHs from normal brain tissue. Since small and larger WMHs have quite a different appearance, the authors have trained two probabilistic classifiers: one for the small WMHs (⩽3 mm effective diameter) and one for the larger WMHs (>3 mm in-plane effective diameter). For each size-specific classifier, an Adaboost is trained for five iterations, with random forests as the basic classifier. The feature sets consist of 22 features including intensities, location information, blob detectors, and second order derivatives. The outcomes of the two first-stage classifiers were combined into a single WMH likelihood by a second-stage classifier. Their method was trained and evaluated on a dataset with MRI scans of 362 SVD patients (312 subjects for training and validation annotated by one and 50 for testing annotated by two trained raters). To analyze performance on the separate test set, the authors performed a free-response receiving operating characteristic (FROC) analysis, instead of using segmentation based methods that tend to ignore the contribution of small WMHs. RESULTS: Experimental results based on FROC analysis demonstrated a close performance of the proposed computer aided detection (CAD) system to human readers. While an independent reader had 0.78 sensitivity with 28 false positives per volume on average, their proposed CAD system reaches a sensitivity of 0.73 with the same number of false positives. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed a CAD system with all its ingredients being optimized for a better detection of WMHs of all size, which shows performance close to an independent reader.
PURPOSE: White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are seen on FLAIR-MRI in several neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis, dementia, Parkinsonism, stroke and cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). WMHs are often used as biomarkers for prognosis or disease progression in these diseases, and additionally longitudinal quantification of WMHs is used to evaluate therapeutic strategies. Human readers show considerable disagreement and inconsistency on detection of small lesions. A multitude of automated detection algorithms for WMHs exists, but since most of the current automated approaches are tuned to optimize segmentation performance according to Jaccard or Dice scores, smaller WMHs often go undetected in these approaches. In this paper, the authors propose a method to accurately detect all WMHs, large as well as small. METHODS: A two-stage learning approach was used to discriminate WMHs from normal brain tissue. Since small and larger WMHs have quite a different appearance, the authors have trained two probabilistic classifiers: one for the small WMHs (⩽3 mm effective diameter) and one for the larger WMHs (>3 mm in-plane effective diameter). For each size-specific classifier, an Adaboost is trained for five iterations, with random forests as the basic classifier. The feature sets consist of 22 features including intensities, location information, blob detectors, and second order derivatives. The outcomes of the two first-stage classifiers were combined into a single WMH likelihood by a second-stage classifier. Their method was trained and evaluated on a dataset with MRI scans of 362 SVDpatients (312 subjects for training and validation annotated by one and 50 for testing annotated by two trained raters). To analyze performance on the separate test set, the authors performed a free-response receiving operating characteristic (FROC) analysis, instead of using segmentation based methods that tend to ignore the contribution of small WMHs. RESULTS: Experimental results based on FROC analysis demonstrated a close performance of the proposed computer aided detection (CAD) system to human readers. While an independent reader had 0.78 sensitivity with 28 false positives per volume on average, their proposed CAD system reaches a sensitivity of 0.73 with the same number of false positives. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed a CAD system with all its ingredients being optimized for a better detection of WMHs of all size, which shows performance close to an independent reader.
Authors: David A Wolk; Carl Sadowsky; Beth Safirstein; Juha O Rinne; Ranjan Duara; Richard Perry; Marc Agronin; Jose Gamez; Jiong Shi; Adrian Ivanoiu; Lennart Minthon; Zuzana Walker; Steen Hasselbalch; Clive Holmes; Marwan Sabbagh; Marilyn Albert; Adam Fleisher; Paul Loughlin; Eric Triau; Kirk Frey; Peter Høgh; Andrea Bozoki; Roger Bullock; Eric Salmon; Gillian Farrar; Christopher J Buckley; Michelle Zanette; Paul F Sherwin; Andrea Cherubini; Fraser Inglis Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
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
Authors: Hugo J Kuijf; J Matthijs Biesbroek; Jeroen De Bresser; Rutger Heinen; Simon Andermatt; Mariana Bento; Matt Berseth; Mikhail Belyaev; M Jorge Cardoso; Adria Casamitjana; D Louis Collins; Mahsa Dadar; Achilleas Georgiou; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Dakai Jin; April Khademi; Jesse Knight; Hongwei Li; Xavier Llado; Miguel Luna; Qaiser Mahmood; Richard McKinley; Alireza Mehrtash; Sebastien Ourselin; Bo-Yong Park; Hyunjin Park; Sang Hyun Park; Simon Pezold; Elodie Puybareau; Leticia Rittner; Carole H Sudre; Sergi Valverde; Veronica Vilaplana; Roland Wiest; Yongchao Xu; Ziyue Xu; Guodong Zeng; Jianguo Zhang; Guoyan Zheng; Christopher Chen; Wiesje van der Flier; Frederik Barkhof; Max A Viergever; Geert Jan Biessels Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Mohsen Ghafoorian; Nico Karssemeijer; Tom Heskes; Inge W M van Uden; Clara I Sanchez; Geert Litjens; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Bram van Ginneken; Elena Marchiori; Bram Platel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Esther M C van Leijsen; Ingeborg W M van Uden; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Mayra I Bergkamp; Valerie Lohner; Eline C M Kooijmans; Helena M van der Holst; Anil M Tuladhar; David G Norris; Ewoud J van Dijk; Loes C A Rutten-Jacobs; Bram Platel; Catharina J M Klijn; Frank-Erik de Leeuw Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jonathan Tay; Anil M Tuladhar; Matthew J Hollocks; Rebecca L Brookes; Daniel J Tozer; Thomas R Barrick; Masud Husain; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Hugh S Markus Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Carlos Uziel Pérez Malla; Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Muhammad Febrian Rachmadi; Taku Komura Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Esther M C van Leijsen; Ingeborg W M van Uden; Mayra I Bergkamp; Helena M van der Holst; David G Norris; Jurgen A H R Claassen; Roy P C Kessels; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Anil M Tuladhar Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Pim Moeskops; Jeroen de Bresser; Hugo J Kuijf; Adriënne M Mendrik; Geert Jan Biessels; Josien P W Pluim; Ivana Išgum Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 4.881