Feature-Space Transformation Improves Supervised Segmentation Across Scanners

  • Annegreet van OpbroekEmail author
  • Hakim C. Achterberg
  • Marleen de Bruijne
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9487)


Image-segmentation techniques based on supervised classification generally perform well on the condition that training and test samples have the same feature distribution. However, if training and test images are acquired with different scanners or scanning parameters, their feature distributions can be very different, which can hurt the performance of such techniques.

We propose a feature-space-transformation method to overcome these differences in feature distributions. Our method learns a mapping of the feature values of training voxels to values observed in images from the test scanner. This transformation is learned from unlabeled images of subjects scanned on both the training scanner and the test scanner.

We evaluated our method on hippocampus segmentation on 27 images of the Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol (HarP), a heterogeneous dataset consisting of 1.5T and 3T MR images. The results showed that our feature space transformation improved the Dice overlap of segmentations obtained with an SVM classifier from 0.36 to 0.85 when only 10 atlases were used and from 0.79 to 0.85 when around 100 atlases were used.


Brain Hippocampus Machine learning MRI Transfer learning 



This research is financed by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).


  1. 1.
    Pan, S., Yang, Q.: A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22(10), 1345–1359 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Opbroek, A., Ikram, M., Vernooij, M., De Bruijne, M.: Transfer learning improves supervised image segmentation across imaging protocols. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34(5), 1018–1030 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roy, S., Carass, A., Prince, J.: A compressed sensing approach for MR tissue contrast synthesis. In: Székely, G., Hahn, H.K. (eds.) IPMI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6801, pp. 371–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dill, V., Franco, A., Pinho, M.: Automated methods for hippocampus segmentation: the evolution and a review of the state of the art. Neuroinformatics 1, 1–18 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artaechevarria, X., Munoz-Barrutia, A., Ortiz-de-Solórzano, C.: Combination strategies in multi-atlas image segmentation: application to brain MR data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 28(8), 1266–1277 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coupé, P., Manjón, J., Fonov, V., Pruessner, J., Robles, M., Collins, D.: Patch-based segmentation using expert priors: application to hippocampus and ventricle segmentation. Neuroimage 54(2), 940–954 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Powell, S., Magnotta, V., Johnson, H., Jammalamadaka, V., Pierson, R., Andreasen, N.: Registration and machine learning-based automated segmentation of subcortical and cerebellar brain structures. Neuroimage 39(1), 238–247 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Lijn, F., De Bruijne, M., Klein, S., Den Heijer, T., Hoogendam, Y., Van der Lugt, A., Breteler, M., Niessen, W.: Automated brain structure segmentation based on atlas registration and appearance models. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 31(2), 276–286 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Morency, F., Collins, D., Nishikawa, M., Ganzola, R., Grothe, M., Wolf, D., Redolfi, A., Pievani, M., et al.: Training labels for hippocampal segmentation based on the EADC-ADNI harmonized hippocampal protocol. Alzheimer’s Dement. 11(2), 175–183 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mueller, S., Weiner, M., Thal, L., Petersen, R., Jack, C., Jagust, W., Trojanowski, J., Toga, A., Beckett, L.: Ways toward an early diagnosis in Alzheimer’s disease: the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI). Alzheimer’s Dement. 1(1), 55–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, S., Staring, M., Murphy, K., Viergever, M., Pluim, J.: Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29(1), 196–205 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, S.: Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum. Brain Mapp. 17(3), 143–155 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bron, E., Steketee, R., Houston, G., Oliver, R., Achterberg, H., Loog, M., Swieten, J., Hammers, A., Niessen, W., Smits, M., et al.: Diagnostic classification of arterial spin labeling and structural MRI in presenile early stage dementia. Hum. Brain Mapp. 35(9), 4916–4931 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischl, B., Salat, D., Busa, E., Albert, M., Dieterich, M., Haselgrove, C., Van der Kouwe, A., Killiany, R., Kennedy, D., Klaveness, S., et al.: Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 33(3), 341–355 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annegreet van Opbroek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hakim C. Achterberg
    • 1
  • Marleen de Bruijne
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Departments of Medical Informatics and RadiologyErasmus MC - University Medical Center RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations