4.7 Article

Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 786-802

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.037

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C519938/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C519938/1] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [R21 EB004126, R03 EB008201, R33 EB004126, EB004126, R03EB008201] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH084029, P50 MH062185-01, P50 MH062185, P50-MH062185, R01 MH040695] Funding Source: Medline
  5. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All fields of neuroscience that employ brain imaging need to communicate their results with reference to anatomical regions. In particular, comparative morphometry and group analysis of functional and physiological data require coregistration of brains to establish correspondences across brain structures. It is well established that linear registration of one brain to another is inadequate for aligning brain structures, so numerous algorithms have emerged to nonlinearly register brains to one another. This study is the largest evaluation of nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to brain image registration ever conducted. Fourteen algorithms from laboratories around the world are evaluated using 8 different error measures. More than 45,000 registrations between 80 manually labeled brains were performed by algorithms including: AIR, ANIMAL, ART, Diffeomorphic Demons, FNIRT, IRTK, JRD-fluid, ROMEO, SICLE, SyN, and four different SPM5 algorithms (SPM2-type and regular Normalization, Unified Segmentation, and the DARTELToolbox). All of these registrations were preceded by linear registration between the same image pairs using FLIRT. One of the most significant findings of this study is that the relative performances of the registration methods under comparison appear to be little affected by the choice of subject population, labeling protocol, and type of overlap measure. This is important because it suggests that the findings are generalizable to new subject populations that are labeled or evaluated using different labeling protocols. Furthermore, we ranked the 14 methods according to three completely independent analyses (permutation tests, one-way ANOVA tests, and indifference-zone ranking) and derived three almost identical top rankings of the methods. ART, SyN, IRTK, and SPM's DARTELToolbox gave the best results according to overlap and distance measures, with ART and SyN delivering the most consistently high accuracy across subjects and label sets. Updates will be published on the http://www.mindboggle.info/papers/website. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据