International Workshop on Patch-based Techniques in Medical Imaging

Patch-Based Techniques in Medical Imaging pp 180-187 | Cite as

Patch-Based Segmentation from MP2RAGE Images: Comparison to Conventional Techniques

  • Erhard T. Næss-Schmidt
  • Anna Tietze
  • Irene K. Mikkelsen
  • Mikkel Petersen
  • Jakob U. Blicher
  • Pierrick Coupé
  • José V. Manjón
  • Simon F. Eskildsen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9467)

Abstract

In structural and functional MRI studies there is a need for robust and accurate automatic segmentation of various brain structures. We present a comparison study of three automatic segmentation methods based on the new T1-weighted MR sequence called MP2RAGE, which has superior soft tissue contrast. Automatic segmentations of the thalamus and hippocampus are compared to manual segmentations. In addition, we qualitatively evaluate the segmentations when warped to co-registered maps of the fractional anisotropy (FA) of water diffusion. Compared to manual segmentation, the best results were obtained with a patch-based segmentation method (volBrain) using a library of images from the same scanner (local), followed by volBrain using an external library (external), FSL and Freesurfer. The qualitative evaluation showed that volBrain local and volBrain external produced almost no segmentation errors when overlaid on FA maps, while both FSL and Freesurfer segmentations were found to overlap with white matter tracts. These results underline the importance of applying accurate and robust segmentation methods and demonstrate the superiority of patch-based methods over more conventional methods.

Keywords

Patch-based segmentation MRI volBrain Freesurfer FSL MP2RAGE 

References

  1. 1.
    Boccardi, M., et al.: Delphi definition of the EADC-ADNI Harmonized Protocol for hippocampal segmentation on magnetic resonance. Alzheimer’s Dement. J. Alzheimer’s Assoc. 11(2), 126–138 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nugent, A.C., et al.: Automated subcortical segmentation using FIRST: test-retest reliability, interscanner reliability, and comparison to manual segmentation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 34(9), 2313–2329 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Han, X., et al.: Reliability of MRI-derived measurements of human cerebral cortical thickness: the effects of field strength, scanner upgrade and manufacturer. NeuroImage 32(1), 180–194 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mulder, E.R., et al.: Hippocampal volume change measurement: quantitative assessment of the reproducibility of expert manual outlining and the automated methods FreeSurfer and FIRST. NeuroImage 92, 169–181 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coupé, P., et al.: Patch-based segmentation using expert priors: application to hippocampus and ventricle segmentation. NeuroImage 54(2), 940–954 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eskildsen, S.F., et al.: BEaST: brain extraction based on nonlocal segmentation technique. NeuroImage 59(3), 2362–2373 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tong, T., et al.: Segmentation of MR images via discriminative dictionary learning and sparse coding: application to hippocampus labeling. NeuroImage 76, 11–23 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coupé, P., et al.: Scoring by nonlocal image patch estimator for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage Clin. 1(1), 141–152 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marques, J.P., et al.: MP2RAGE, a self bias-field corrected sequence for improved segmentation and T1-mapping at high field. NeuroImage 49(2), 1271–1281 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujimoto, K., et al.: Quantitative comparison of cortical surface reconstructions from MP2RAGE and multi-echo MPRAGE data at 3 and 7 T. NeuroImage 90, 60–73 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leemans, A., et al.: ExploreDTI: a graphical toolbox for processing, analyzing, and visualizing diffusion MR data. In: 17th Annual Meeting of International Society Magnetic Resonance Medicine, Hawaii, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yushkevich, P.A., et al.: User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage 31(3), 1116–1128 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Power, B.D., et al.: Validation of a protocol for manual segmentation of the thalamus on magnetic resonance imaging scans. Psychiatry Res. 232(1), 98–105 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patenaude, B., et al.: A Bayesian model of shape and appearance for subcortical brain segmentation. NeuroImage 56(3), 907–922 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dale, A.M., Fischl, B., Sereno, M.I.: Cortical surface-based analysis: I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. NeuroImage 9(2), 179–194 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manjon, J.V., et al.: Adaptive non-local means denoising of MR images with spatially varying noise levels. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging JMRI 31(1), 192–203 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Avants, B.B., et al.: A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration. NeuroImage 54(3), 2033–2044 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiskopf, N., et al.: Unified segmentation based correction of R1 brain maps for RF transmit field inhomogeneities (UNICORT). NeuroImage 54(3), 2116–2124 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morey, R.A., et al.: A comparison of automated segmentation and manual tracing for quantifying hippocampal and amygdala volumes. NeuroImage 45(3), 855–866 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erhard T. Næss-Schmidt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Tietze
    • 1
    • 3
  • Irene K. Mikkelsen
    • 1
  • Mikkel Petersen
    • 1
  • Jakob U. Blicher
    • 1
    • 4
  • Pierrick Coupé
    • 5
  • José V. Manjón
    • 6
  • Simon F. Eskildsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Center of Functionally Integrative NeuroscienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Hammel Neurorehabilitation CentreAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.Department of NeuroradiologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  4. 4.Department of NeurologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  5. 5.Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique, PICTURA Research GroupUnité Mixte de Recherche CNRS (UMR 5800)TalencecedexFrance
  6. 6.Instituto de Aplicaciones de las Tecnologías de la Información y de las ComunicacionesAvanzadas (ITACA)Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations