4.7 Article

Evaluation of Automated Brain MR Image Segmentation and Volumetry Methods

Journal

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 1310-1327

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20599

Keywords

structural MRI; segmentation; accuracy; volumetry

Funding

  1. NIMH/IRP
  2. The Research Council of Norway [Aur06-11]
  3. France-Norway AURORA Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compare three widely used brain volumetry methods available in the software packages FSL, SPM5, and FreeSurfer and evaluate their performance using simulated and real MR brain data sets. We analyze the accuracy of gray and white matter Volume measurements and their robustness against changes of image quality using the BrainWeb MRI database. These images are based on gold-standard reference brain templates. This allows us to assess between- (same data set, different method) and also within-segmenter (same method, variation of image quality) comparability, for both of which we find pronounced variations in segmentation results for gray and white matter volumes. The calculated volumes deviate up to >10% from the reference values for gray and white matter depending on method and image quality. Sensitivity is best for SPM5, volumetric accuracy for gray and white matter was similar in SPM5 and FSL and batter than in FreeSurfer. FSL showed the highest stability for white (<5%), FreeSurfer (6.2%) for gray matter for constant image quality BrainWeb data. Between-segmenter comparisons show discrepancies of Lip to >20% for the simulated data and 24% on average for the real data sets, whereas within-method performance analysis uncovered volume differences of tip to >15%. Since the discrepancies between results reach the same order of magnitude as volume changes observed in disease, these effects limit the usability of the segmentation methods for following volume changes in individual patients over time and should be taken into account during the planning and analysis of brain volume studies. Hum Brain Mapp 30:1310-1327, 2009. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available