4.7 Article

Improving intersubject image registration using tissue-class information benefits robustness and accuracy of multi-atlas based anatomical segmentation

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 221-227

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.072

关键词

Image segmentation; Human brain; Brain anatomy; Brain atlas

资金

  1. Dunhill Medical Trust, UK
  2. MRC [G108/585, MC_U120061309] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G108/585, MC_U120061309] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Automatic anatomical segmentation of magnetic resonance human brain images has been shown to be accurate and robust when based on multiple atlases that encompass the anatomical variability of the cohort of subjects. We observed that the method tends to fail when the segmentation target shows ventricular enlargement that is not captured by the atlas database. By incorporating tissue classification information into the image registration process, we aimed to increase the robustness of the method. For testing, subjects who participated in the Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Aging (OPTIMA) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were selected for ventriculomegaly. Segmentation quality was substantially improved in the ventricles and surrounding structures (9/9 successes on visual rating versus 4/9 successes using the baseline method). In addition, the modification resulted in a significant increase of segmentation accuracy in healthy subjects' brain images. Hippocampal segmentation results in a group of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy were near identical with both approaches. The modified approach (MAPER, multiatlas propagation with enhanced registration) extends the applicability of multi-atlas based automatic whole-brain segmentation to subjects with ventriculomegaly, as seen in normal aging as well as in numerous neurodegenerative diseases. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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