Literature DB >> 34490589

A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients.

L Vass1, M J Moore2, T Hanayik3, G Mair4,5, S T Pendlebury6,7, N Demeyere2, M Jenkinson3.   

Abstract

Cranial cavity extraction is often the first step in quantitative neuroimaging analyses. However, few automated, validated extraction tools have been developed for non-contrast enhanced CT scans (NECT). The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast freely available tools in an unseen dataset of real-world clinical NECT head scans in order to assess the performance and generalisability of these tools. This study included data from a demographically representative sample of 428 patients who had completed NECT scans following hospitalisation for stroke. In a subset of the scans (n = 20), the intracranial spaces were segmented using automated tools and compared to the gold standard of manual delineation to calculate accuracy, precision, recall, and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values. Further, three readers independently performed regional visual comparisons of the quality of the results in a larger dataset (n = 428). Three tools were found; one of these had unreliable performance so subsequent evaluation was discontinued. The remaining tools included one that was adapted from the FMRIB software library (fBET) and a convolutional neural network- based tool (rBET). Quantitative comparison showed comparable accuracy, precision, recall and DSC values (fBET: 0.984 ± 0.002; rBET: 0.984 ± 0.003; p = 0.99) between the tools; however, intracranial volume was overestimated. Visual comparisons identified characteristic regional differences in the resulting cranial cavity segmentations. Overall fBET had highest visual quality ratings and was preferred by the readers in the majority of subject results (84%). However, both tools produced high quality extractions of the intracranial space and our findings should improve confidence in these automated CT tools. Pre- and post-processing techniques may further improve these results.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brain extraction; Computed tomography; Image segmentation; Intracranial volume; Validation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34490589      PMCID: PMC9547790          DOI: 10.1007/s12021-021-09534-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroinformatics        ISSN: 1539-2791


  16 in total

1.  User-friendly software for the analysis of brain lesions (ABLe).

Authors:  Jeffrey Solomon; Vanessa Raymont; Allen Braun; John A Butman; Jordan Grafman
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  Accuracy and reproducibility study of automatic MRI brain tissue segmentation methods.

Authors:  Renske de Boer; Henri A Vrooman; M Arfan Ikram; Meike W Vernooij; Monique M B Breteler; Aad van der Lugt; Wiro J Niessen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Age-specific CT and MRI templates for spatial normalization.

Authors:  Christopher Rorden; Leonardo Bonilha; Julius Fridriksson; Benjamin Bender; Hans-Otto Karnath
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Volumetric brain analysis in neurosurgery: Part 1. Particle filter segmentation of brain and cerebrospinal fluid growth dynamics from MRI and CT images.

Authors:  Jason G Mandell; Jack W Langelaan; Andrew G Webb; Steven J Schiff
Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Validated automatic brain extraction of head CT images.

Authors:  John Muschelli; Natalie L Ullman; W Andrew Mould; Paul Vespa; Daniel F Hanley; Ciprian M Crainiceanu
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS): validation of a stroke-specific short cognitive screening tool.

Authors:  Nele Demeyere; M Jane Riddoch; Elitsa D Slavkova; Wai-Ling Bickerton; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2015-03-02

7.  Endovascular treatment for Small Core and Anterior circulation Proximal occlusion with Emphasis on minimizing CT to recanalization times (ESCAPE) trial: methodology.

Authors:  Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Muneer Eesa; Karla J Ryckborst; Noreen Kamal; Shivanand Patil; Sachin Mishra; Mohammed Almekhlafi; Privia A Randhawa; Daniel Roy; Robert Willinsky; Walter Montanera; Frank L Silver; Ashfaq Shuaib; Jeremy Rempel; Tudor Jovin; Donald Frei; Biggya Sapkota; J Michael Thornton; Alexandre Poppe; Donatella Tampieri; Cheemun Lum; Alain Weill; Tolulope T Sajobi; Michael D Hill
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2014-12-25       Impact factor: 5.266

8.  Quantitative evaluation of automated skull-stripping methods applied to contemporary and legacy images: effects of diagnosis, bias correction, and slice location.

Authors:  Christine Fennema-Notestine; I Burak Ozyurt; Camellia P Clark; Shaunna Morris; Amanda Bischoff-Grethe; Mark W Bondi; Terry L Jernigan; Bruce Fischl; Florent Segonne; David W Shattuck; Richard M Leahy; David E Rex; Arthur W Toga; Kelly H Zou; Gregory G Brown
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Knowledge-guided robust MRI brain extraction for diverse large-scale neuroimaging studies on humans and non-human primates.

Authors:  Yaping Wang; Jingxin Nie; Pew-Thian Yap; Gang Li; Feng Shi; Xiujuan Geng; Lei Guo; Dinggang Shen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Domain-specific versus generalized cognitive screening in acute stroke.

Authors:  Nele Demeyere; M J Riddoch; E D Slavkova; K Jones; I Reckless; P Mathieson; G W Humphreys
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 4.849

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.