4.0 Article

Efficacy of Texture, Shape, and Intensity Feature Fusion for Posterior-Fossa Tumor Segmentation in MRI

Journal

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TITB.2011.2104376

Keywords

Expectation maximization (EM); fractal dimension (FD); Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD); MRI modalities; multi-fractional Brownian motion (mBm)

Funding

  1. Whitaker Foundation through biomedical engineering research [RG-01-0125, TG-04-026]
  2. NIH/NCI research [1R15CA115464]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our previous works suggest that fractal texture feature is useful to detect pediatric brain tumor in multimodal MRI. In this study, we systematically investigate efficacy of using several different image features such as intensity, fractal texture, and level-set shape in segmentation of posterior-fossa (PF) tumor for pediatric patients. We explore effectiveness of using four different feature selection and three different segmentation techniques, respectively, to discriminate tumor regions from normal tissue in multimodal brain MRI. We further study the selective fusion of these features for improved PF tumor segmentation. Our result suggests that Kullback-Leibler divergence measure for feature ranking and selection and the expectation maximization algorithm for feature fusion and tumor segmentation offer the best results for the patient data in this study. We show that for T1 and fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI modalities, the best PF tumor segmentation is obtained using the texture feature such as multifractional Brownian motion (mBm) while that for T2 MRI is obtained by fusing level-set shape with intensity features. In multimodality fused MRI (T1, T2, and FLAIR), mBm feature offers the best PF tumor segmentation performance. We use different similarity metrics to evaluate quality and robustness of these selected features for PF tumor segmentation in MRI for ten pediatric patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available