4.7 Article

Fast and sequence-adaptive whole-brain segmentation using parametric Bayesian modeling

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 235-249

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.011

关键词

MRI; Segmentation; Atlases; Parametric models; Bayesian modeling

资金

  1. NIH NCRR [P41-RR14075, 1S10RR023043]
  2. NIBIB [R01EB013565]
  3. Lundbeck foundation [R141-2013-13117]
  4. Technical University of Denmark
  5. Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia (Fellows Gipuzkoa Program)
  6. European Union's Horizon Research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [654911]
  7. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competetiveness (MINECO) [TEC2014-51882-P]
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M020533/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Lundbeck Foundation [R141-2013-13117] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [654911] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  11. EPSRC [EP/M020533/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the brain requires accurate automated segmentation of anatomical structures. A desirable feature for such segmentation methods is to be robust against changes in acquisition platform and imaging protocol. In this paper we validate the performance of a segmentation algorithm designed to meet these requirements, building upon generative parametric models previously used in tissue classification. The method is tested on four different datasets acquired with different scanners, field strengths and pulse sequences, demonstrating comparable accuracy to state-of-the-art methods on T1-weighted scans while being one to two orders of magnitude faster. The proposed algorithm is also shown to be robust against small training datasets, and readily handles images with different MRI contrast as well as multi-contrast data. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license.

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