Dataset Information

SuRVoS: Super-Region Volume Segmentation workbench.

ABSTRACT: Segmentation of biological volumes is a crucial step needed to fully analyse their scientific content. Not having access to convenient tools with which to segment or annotate the data means many biological volumes remain under-utilised. Automatic segmentation of biological volumes is still a very challenging research field, and current methods usually require a large amount of manually-produced training data to deliver a high-quality segmentation. However, the complex appearance of cellular features and the high variance from one sample to another, along with the time-consuming work of manually labelling complete volumes, makes the required training data very scarce or non-existent. Thus, fully automatic approaches are often infeasible for many practical applications. With the aim of unifying the segmentation power of automatic approaches with the user expertise and ability to manually annotate biological samples, we present a new workbench named SuRVoS (Super-Region Volume Segmentation). Within this software, a volume to be segmented is first partitioned into hierarchical segmentation layers (named Super-Regions) and is then interactively segmented with the user's knowledge input in the form of training annotations. SuRVoS first learns from and then extends user inputs to the rest of the volume, while using Super-Regions for quicker and easier segmentation than when using a voxel grid. These benefits are especially noticeable on noisy, low-dose, biological datasets.

SUBMITTER: Luengo I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5405849 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

SuRVoS: Super-Region Volume Segmentation workbench.

Luengo Imanol I Darrow Michele C MC Spink Matthew C MC Sun Ying Y Dai Wei W He Cynthia Y CY Chiu Wah W Pridmore Tony T Ashton Alun W AW Duke Elizabeth M H EMH Basham Mark M French Andrew P AP

Journal of structural biology 20170227 1

Segmentation of biological volumes is a crucial step needed to fully analyse their scientific content. Not having access to convenient tools with which to segment or annotate the data means many biological volumes remain under-utilised. Automatic segmentation of biological volumes is still a very challenging research field, and current methods usually require a large amount of manually-produced training data to deliver a high-quality segmentation. However, the complex appearance of cellular feat ...[more]

PMID: 28246039

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeWM lesion segmentation is often performed with the use of subjective rating scales because manual methods are laborious and tedious; however, automated methods are now available. We compared the performance of total lesion volume grading computed by use of an automated WM lesion segmentation algorithm with that of subjective rating scales and expert manual segmentation in a cohort of subjects with type 2 diabetes.Materials and methodsStructural T1 and FLAIR MR imaging data from 50 subjects with diabetes (age, 67.7 ± 7.2 years) and 50 nondiabetic sibling pairs (age, 67.5 ± 9.4 years) were evaluated in an institutional review board-approved study. WM lesion segmentation maps and total lesion volume were generated for each subject by means of the Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM8) Lesion Segmentation Toolbox. Subjective WM lesion grade was determined by means of a 0-9 rating scale by 2 readers. Ground-truth total lesion volume was determined by means of manual segmentation by experienced readers. Correlation analyses compared manual segmentation total lesion volume with automated and subjective evaluation methods.ResultsCorrelation between average lesion segmentation and ground-truth total lesion volume was 0.84. Maximum correlation between the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox and ground-truth total lesion volume (ρ = 0.87) occurred at the segmentation threshold of k = 0.25, whereas maximum correlation between subjective lesion segmentation and the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (ρ = 0.73) occurred at k = 0.15. The difference between the 2 correlation estimates with ground-truth was not statistically significant. The lower segmentation threshold (0.15 versus 0.25) suggests that subjective raters overestimate WM lesion burden.ConclusionsWe validate the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox for determining total lesion volume in diabetes-enriched populations and compare it with a common subjective WM lesion rating scale. The Lesion Segmentation Toolbox is a readily available substitute for subjective WM lesion scoring in studies of diabetes and other populations with changes of leukoaraiosis.

Dataset Information

SuRVoS: Super-Region Volume Segmentation workbench.

Publications

SuRVoS: Super-Region Volume Segmentation workbench.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets