4.7 Article

Automated brain tumor segmentation using spatial accuracy-weighted hidden Markov Random Field

期刊

COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL IMAGING AND GRAPHICS
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 431-441

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.04.006

关键词

MRI; Segmentation; Brain tumor

资金

  1. Bioinformatics Program
  2. Methodist Hospital Research Institute
  3. NIH [G08 LM008937]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A variety of algorithms have been proposed for brain tumor segmentation from multi-channel sequences, however, most of them require isotropic or pseudo-isotropic resolution of the MR images. Although co-registration and interpolation of low-resolution sequences, such as T2-weighted images, onto the space of the high-resolution image, such as T1-weighted image, can be performed prior to the segmentation, the results are usually limited by partial volume effects due to interpolation of low-resolution images. To improve the quality of tumor segmentation in clinical applications where low-resolution sequences are commonly used together with high-resolution images, we propose the algorithm based on Spatial accuracy-weighted Hidden Markov random field and Expectation maximization (SHE) approach for both automated tumor and enhanced-tumor segmentation. SHE incorporates the spatial interpolation accuracy of low-resolution images into the optimization procedure of the Hidden Markov Random Field (HMRF)to segment tumor using multi-channel MR images with different resolutions, e.g., high-resolution T1-weighted and low-resolution T2-weighted images. In experiments, we evaluated this algorithm using a set of simulated multi-channel brain MR images with known ground-truth tissue segmentation and also applied it to a dataset of MR images obtained during clinical trials of brain tumor chemotherapy. The results show that more accurate tumor segmentation results can be obtained by comparing with conventional multi-channel segmentation algorithms. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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