| Literature DB >> 30209345 |
Olivier Commowick1, Audrey Istace2, Michaël Kain3, Baptiste Laurent4, Florent Leray3, Mathieu Simon3, Sorina Camarasu Pop5, Pascal Girard5, Roxana Améli2, Jean-Christophe Ferré3,6, Anne Kerbrat3,7, Thomas Tourdias8, Frédéric Cervenansky5, Tristan Glatard9, Jérémy Beaumont3, Senan Doyle10, Florence Forbes10,11, Jesse Knight12, April Khademi13, Amirreza Mahbod14, Chunliang Wang14, Richard McKinley15, Franca Wagner15, John Muschelli16, Elizabeth Sweeney16, Eloy Roura17, Xavier Lladó17, Michel M Santos18, Wellington P Santos19, Abel G Silva-Filho18, Xavier Tomas-Fernandez20, Hélène Urien21, Isabelle Bloch21, Sergi Valverde17, Mariano Cabezas17, Francisco Javier Vera-Olmos22, Norberto Malpica22, Charles Guttmann23, Sandra Vukusic2, Gilles Edan3,7, Michel Dojat24, Martin Styner25, Simon K Warfield20, François Cotton2, Christian Barillot3.
Abstract
We present a study of multiple sclerosis segmentation algorithms conducted at the international MICCAI 2016 challenge. This challenge was operated using a new open-science computing infrastructure. This allowed for the automatic and independent evaluation of a large range of algorithms in a fair and completely automatic manner. This computing infrastructure was used to evaluate thirteen methods of MS lesions segmentation, exploring a broad range of state-of-theart algorithms, against a high-quality database of 53 MS cases coming from four centers following a common definition of the acquisition protocol. Each case was annotated manually by an unprecedented number of seven different experts. Results of the challenge highlighted that automatic algorithms, including the recent machine learning methods (random forests, deep learning, …), are still trailing human expertise on both detection and delineation criteria. In addition, we demonstrate that computing a statistically robust consensus of the algorithms performs closer to human expertise on one score (segmentation) although still trailing on detection scores.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30209345 PMCID: PMC6135867 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-31911-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379