4.6 Article

Multi-Atlas Skull-Stripping

期刊

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 1566-1576

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.010

关键词

Brain extraction; registration; multi-atlas; label fusion; Jacobian determinant

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG014971] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB009234] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale and Objectives: We present a new method for automatic brain extraction on structural magnetic resonance images, based on a multi-atlas registration framework. Materials and Methods: Our method addresses fundamental challenges of multi-atlas approaches. To overcome the difficulties arising from the variability of imaging characteristics between studies, we propose a study-specific template selection strategy, by which we select a set of templates that best represent the anatomical variations within the data set. Against the difficulties of registering brain images with skull, we use a particularly adapted registration algorithm that is more robust to large variations between images, as it adaptively aligns different regions of the two images based not only on their similarity but also on the reliability of the matching between images. Finally, a spatially adaptive weighted voting strategy, which uses the ranking of Jacobian determinant values to measure the local similarity between the template and the target images, is applied for combining coregistered template masks. Results: The method is validated on three different public data sets and obtained a higher accuracy than recent state-of-the-art brain extraction methods. Also, the proposed method is successfully applied on several recent imaging studies, each containing thousands of magnetic resonance images, thus reducing the manual correction time significantly. Conclusions: The new method, available as a stand-alone software package for public use, provides a robust and accurate brain extraction tool applicable for both clinical use and large population studies.

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

4.6
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