Nonlocal Patch-Based Label Fusion for Hippocampus Segmentation

  • Pierrick Coupé
  • José V. Manjón
  • Vladimir Fonov
  • Jens Pruessner
  • Montserrat Robles
  • D. Louis Collins
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6363)


Quantitative magnetic resonance analysis often requires accurate, robust and reliable automatic extraction of anatomical structures. Recently, template-warping methods incorporating a label fusion strategy have demonstrated high accuracy in segmenting cerebral structures. In this study, we propose a novel patch-based method using expert segmentation priors to achieve this task. Inspired by recent work in image denoising, the proposed nonlocal patch-based label fusion produces accurate and robust segmentation. During our experiments, the hippocampi of 80 healthy subjects were segmented. The influence on segmentation accuracy of different parameters such as patch size or number of training subjects was also studied. Moreover, a comparison with an appearance-based method and a template-based method was carried out. The highest median kappa value obtained with the proposed method was 0.884, which is competitive compared with recently published methods.


Patch Size Segmentation Accuracy Training Subject Nonlinear Registration Stereotaxic Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Chupin, M., et al.: Anatomically constrained region deformation for the automated segmentation of the hippocampus and the amygdala: Method and validation on controls and patients with Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage 34(3), 996–1019 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shen, D., et al.: Measuring size and shape of the hippocampus in MR images using a deformable shape model. NeuroImage 15(2), 422–434 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu, S., Collins, D.L.: Joint level-set shape modeling and appearance modeling for brain structure segmentation. NeuroImage 36(3), 672–683 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duchesne, S., Pruessner, J., Collins, D.L.: Appearance-based segmentation of medial temporal lobe structures. NeuroImage 17(2), 515–531 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes, J., et al.: A comparison of methods for the automated calculation of volumes and atrophy rates in the hippocampus. NeuroImage 40(4), 1655–16571 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heckemann, R.A., et al.: Automatic anatomical brain MRI segmentation combining label propagation and decision fusion. NeuroImage 33(1), 115–126 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aljabar, P., et al.: Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: atlas selection and its effect on accuracy. NeuroImage 46(3), 726–738 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hammers, A., et al.: Automatic detection and quantification of hippocampal atrophy on MRI in temporal lobe epilepsy: a proof-of-principle study. NeuroImage 36(1), 38–47 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collins, D., Pruessner, J.: Towards Accurate, Automatic Segmentation of the Hippocampus and Amygdala from MRI. In: Yang, G.-Z., Hawkes, D., Rueckert, D., Noble, A., Taylor, C. (eds.) MICCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5762, pp. 592–600. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lotjonen, J.M., et al.: Fast and robust multi-atlas segmentation of brain magnetic resonance images. NeuroImage 49(3), 2352–2365 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gousias, I.S., et al.: Automatic segmentation of brain MRIs of 2-year-olds into 83 regions of interest. NeuroImage 40(2), 672–684 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buades, A., Coll, B., Morel, J.M.: A non-local algorithm for image denoising. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2, pp. 60–65 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coupe, P., et al.: An optimized blockwise nonlocal means denoising filter for 3-D magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 27(4), 425–441 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sled, J.G., Zijdenbos, A.P., Evans, A.C.: A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 17(1), 87–97 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collins, D.L., et al.: Automatic 3-D model-based neuroanatomical segmentation. Human Brain Mapping 3(3), 190–208 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nyul, L.G., Udupa, J.K.: Standardizing the MR image intensity scales: making MR intensities have tissue specific meaning. Medical Imaging 2000: Image Display and Visualization 1(21), 496–504 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, Z., et al.: Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierrick Coupé
    • 1
  • José V. Manjón
    • 2
  • Vladimir Fonov
    • 1
  • Jens Pruessner
    • 1
  • Montserrat Robles
    • 2
  • D. Louis Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological InstituteMcGill University, Montreal, Canada UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Instituto de Aplicaciones de las Tecnologías de la Información y de las Comunicaciones Avanzadas (ITACA)Universidad Politécnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations