4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for computational anatomy

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 23, Issue -, Pages S151-S160

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.068

Keywords

computational anatomy; brain atlases; registration; image segmentation

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [P01EB002779] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH061696, P50MH064065, R01MH064580] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [P01 EB002779] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 64580, MH064065, R01 MH61696] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Construction of population atlases is a key issue in medical image analysis, and particularly in brain mapping. Large sets of images are mapped into a common coordinate system to study intra-population variability and inter-population differences, to provide voxel-wise mapping of functional sites, and help tissue and object segmentation via registration of anatomical labels. Common techniques often include the choice of a template image, which inherently introduces a bias. This paper describes a new method for unbiased construction of atlases in the large deformation diffeomorphic setting. A child neuroimaging autism study serves as a driving application. There is lack of normative data that explains average brain shape and variability at this early stage of development. We present work in progress toward constructing an unbiased MRI atlas of 2 years of children and the building of a probabilistic atlas of anatomical structures, here the caudate nucleus. Further, we demonstrate the segmentation of new subjects via atlas mapping. Validation of the methodology is performed by comparing the deformed probabilistic atlas with existing manual segmentations. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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