4.7 Article

Fast and robust extraction of hippocampus from MR images for diagnostics of Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 185-196

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.062

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Hippocampus; Segmentation; Atlases

资金

  1. European Commission [224328-PredictAD]
  2. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health) [U01 AG024904]
  3. National Institute on Aging
  4. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  5. NIH [P30 AG010129, K01 AG030514]
  6. Dana Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessment of temporal lobe atrophy from magnetic resonance images is a part of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis of prodromal Alzheimer's disease. As hippocampus is known to be among the first areas affected by the disease, fast and robust definition of hippocampus volume would be of great importance in the clinical decision making. We propose a method for computing automatically the volume of hippocampus using a modified multi-atlas segmentation framework, including an improved initialization of the framework and the correction of partial volume effect. The method produced a high similarity index, 0.87, and correlation coefficient, 0.94, with semi-automatically generated segmentations. When comparing hippocampus volumes extracted from 1.5 T and 3 T images, the absolute value of the difference was low: 3.2% of the volume. The correct classification rate for Alzheimer's disease and cognitively normal cases was about 80% while the accuracy 65% was obtained for classifying stable and progressive mild cognitive impairment cases. The method was evaluated in three cohorts consisting altogether about 1000 cases, the main emphasis being in the analysis of the ADNI cohort. The computation time of the method s about 2 minutes on a standard laptop computer. The results show a clear potential for applying the method in clinical practice. (C) 2011 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