An evaluation of four automatic methods of segmenting the subcortical structures in the brain
An evaluation of four automatic methods of segmenting the subcortical structures in the brain
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.029
复制
发表时间：
2009-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Rueckert, Daniel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Babalola, Kolawole Oluwole;Patenaude, Brian;Rueckert, Daniel
大脑皮层下结构的自动分割是一个活跃的研究领域。我们已经全面评估了四种新的方法，全自动分割皮质下结构的体积，空间重叠和基于距离的措施。两种方法是基于图谱的分类器融合和标记（CFL）和使用脑图谱（EMS）的期望最大化分割，以及两种结合形状和外观的统计模型-轮廓主动外观模型（PAM）和贝叶斯外观模型（BAM）。每种方法被应用到分割的18个皮层下结构的270个科目从不同的年龄，疾病，性别和图像采集参数的池。我们的研究结果表明，所有四种方法的性能与最近发表的方法相当。CFL的表现优于其他根据所有三类指标。总之，在所有结构中，Dice系数的排名是CFL，BAM，联合EMS和PAM。Hausdorff距离将这些方法排列为CFL、PAM和BAM联合、EMS，而绝对体积差百分比将它们排列为CFL和PAM联合、BAM和EMS联合。此外，由于我们有四种方法进行分割，我们调查了每种方法获得的结果是否比使用威廉姆斯指数的手动分割更相似。令人欣慰的是，大多数受试者的威廉姆斯指数接近I（平均值= 1.02，标准差= 0.05），表明每种方法与金标准的一致性优于其他方法。然而，2%的病例（主要是杏仁核和杏仁核）的值超出平均值的3个标准差。(C)2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The automation of segmentation of subcortical structures in the brain is an active research area. We have comprehensively evaluated four novel methods of fully automated segmentation of subcortical structures using volumetric, spatial overlap and distance-based measures. Two methods are atlas-based - classifier fusion and labelling (CFL) and expectation-maximisation segmentation using a brain atlas (EMS), and two incorporate statistical models of shape and appearance - profile active appearance models (PAM) and Bayesian appearance models (BAM). Each method was applied to the segmentation of 18 subcortical structures in 270 subjects from a diverse pool varying in age, disease, sex and image acquisition parameters. Our results showed that all four methods perform on par with recently published methods. CFL performed better than the others according to all three classes of metrics. In summary over all structures, the ranking by the Dice coefficient was CFL, BAM, joint EMS and PAM. The Hausdorff distance ranked the methods as CFL, joint PAM and BAM, EMS, whilst percentage absolute volumetric difference ranked them as joint CFL and PAM, joint BAM and EMS. Furthermore, as we had four methods of performing segmentation, we investigated whether the results obtained by each method were more similar to each other than to the manual segmentations using Williams' Index. Reassuringly, the Williams' Index was close to I for most subjects (mean = 1.02, sd = 0.05), indicating better agreement of each method with the gold standard than with the other methods. However, 2% of cases (mainly amygdala and nucleus accumbens) had values outside 3 standard deviations of the mean. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.