Journal
RADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 373-383Publisher
SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12194-023-00728-z
Keywords
Brain extraction; Convolutional neural network; Intracranial volume; Magnetic resonance image; Skull stripping
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In automated brain morphometry analyses, skull stripping is a critical first step for accurate spatial registration and signal-intensity normalization. Convolutional neural network (CNN) methods have shown to be better at skull stripping than non-CNN methods. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of skull stripping in a single-contrast CNN model using eight-contrast magnetic resonance images.
In automated analyses of brain morphometry, skull stripping or brain extraction is a critical first step because it provides accurate spatial registration and signal-intensity normalization. Therefore, it is imperative to develop an ideal skull-stripping method in the field of brain image analysis. Previous reports have shown that convolutional neural network (CNN) method is better at skull stripping than non-CNN methods. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of skull stripping in a single-contrast CNN model using eight-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) images. A total of 12 healthy participants and 12 patients with a clinical diagnosis of unilateral Sturge-Weber syndrome were included in our study. A 3-T MR imaging system and QRAPMASTER were used for data acquisition. We obtained eight-contrast images produced by post-processing T1, T2, and proton density (PD) maps. To evaluate the accuracy of skull stripping in our CNN method, gold-standard intracranial volume (ICVG) masks were used to train the CNN model. The ICVG masks were defined by experts using manual tracing. The accuracy of the intracranial volume obtained from the single-contrast CNN model (ICVE) was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient [= 2(ICVE boolean AND ICVG)/(ICVE + ICVG)]. Our study showed significantly higher accuracy in the PD-weighted image (WI), phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR), and PD-short tau inversion recovery (STIR) compared to the other three contrast images (T1-WI, T2-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR], and T1-FLAIR). In conclusion, PD-WI, PSIR, and PD-STIR should be used instead of T1-WI for skull stripping in the CNN models.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available