Dataset Information

On brain atlas choice and automatic segmentation methods: a comparison of MAPER & FreeSurfer using three atlas databases.

ABSTRACT: Several automatic image segmentation methods and few atlas databases exist for analysing structural T1-weighted magnetic resonance brain images. The impact of choosing a combination has not hitherto been described but may bias comparisons across studies. We evaluated two segmentation methods (MAPER and FreeSurfer), using three publicly available atlas databases (Hammers_mith, Desikan-Killiany-Tourville, and MICCAI 2012 Grand Challenge). For each combination of atlas and method, we conducted a leave-one-out cross-comparison to estimate the segmentation accuracy of FreeSurfer and MAPER. We also used each possible combination to segment two datasets of patients with known structural abnormalities (Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis (HS)) and their matched healthy controls. MAPER was better than FreeSurfer at modelling manual segmentations in the healthy control leave-one-out analyses in two of the three atlas databases, and the Hammers_mith atlas database transferred to new datasets best regardless of segmentation method. Both segmentation methods reliably identified known abnormalities in each patient group. Better separation was seen for FreeSurfer in the AD and left-HS datasets, and for MAPER in the right-HS dataset. We provide detailed quantitative comparisons for multiple anatomical regions, thus enabling researchers to make evidence-based decisions on their choice of atlas and segmentation method.

SUBMITTER: Yaakub SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7028906 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

On brain atlas choice and automatic segmentation methods: a comparison of MAPER & FreeSurfer using three atlas databases.

Yaakub Siti Nurbaya SN Heckemann Rolf A RA Keller Simon S SS McGinnity Colm J CJ Weber Bernd B Hammers Alexander A

Scientific reports 20200218 1

Several automatic image segmentation methods and few atlas databases exist for analysing structural T1-weighted magnetic resonance brain images. The impact of choosing a combination has not hitherto been described but may bias comparisons across studies. We evaluated two segmentation methods (MAPER and FreeSurfer), using three publicly available atlas databases (Hammers_mith, Desikan-Killiany-Tourville, and MICCAI 2012 Grand Challenge). For each combination of atlas and method, we conducted a le ...[more]

PMID: 32071355

Similar Datasets

Project description:In previous work we have developed a fast sequence that focusses on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) based on the long T2 of CSF. By processing the data obtained with this CSF MRI sequence, brain parenchymal volume (BPV) and intracranial volume (ICV) can be automatically obtained. The aim of this study was to assess the precision of the BPV and ICV measurements of the CSF MRI sequence and to validate the CSF MRI sequence by comparison with 3D T1-based brain segmentation methods.Ten healthy volunteers (2 females; median age 28 years) were scanned (3T MRI) twice with repositioning in between. The scan protocol consisted of a low resolution (LR) CSF sequence (0:57min), a high resolution (HR) CSF sequence (3:21min) and a 3D T1-weighted sequence (6:47min). Data of the HR 3D-T1-weighted images were downsampled to obtain LR T1-weighted images (reconstructed imaging time: 1:59 min). Data of the CSF MRI sequences was automatically segmented using in-house software. The 3D T1-weighted images were segmented using FSL (5.0), SPM12 and FreeSurfer (5.3.0).The mean absolute differences for BPV and ICV between the first and second scan for CSF LR (BPV/ICV: 12±9/7±4cc) and CSF HR (5±5/4±2cc) were comparable to FSL HR (9±11/19±23cc), FSL LR (7±4, 6±5cc), FreeSurfer HR (5±3/14±8cc), FreeSurfer LR (9±8, 12±10cc), and SPM HR (5±3/4±7cc), and SPM LR (5±4, 5±3cc). The correlation between the measured volumes of the CSF sequences and that measured by FSL, FreeSurfer and SPM HR and LR was very good (all Pearson's correlation coefficients >0.83, R2 .67-.97). The results from the downsampled data and the high-resolution data were similar.Both CSF MRI sequences have a precision comparable to, and a very good correlation with established 3D T1-based automated segmentations methods for the segmentation of BPV and ICV. However, the short imaging time of the fast CSF MRI sequence is superior to the 3D T1 sequence on which segmentation with established methods is performed.

Project description:Hippocampal volumetry derived from structural MRI is increasingly used to delineate regions of interest for functional measurements, assess efficacy in therapeutic trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been endorsed by the new AD diagnostic guidelines as a radiological marker of disease progression. Unfortunately, morphological heterogeneity in AD can prevent accurate demarcation of the hippocampus. Recent developments in automated volumetry commonly use multi-template fusion driven by expert manual labels, enabling highly accurate and reproducible segmentation in disease and healthy subjects. However, there are several protocols to define the hippocampus anatomically in vivo, and the method used to generate atlases may impact automatic accuracy and sensitivity - particularly in pathologically heterogeneous samples. Here we report a fully automated segmentation technique that provides a robust platform to directly evaluate both technical and biomarker performance in AD among anatomically unique labeling protocols. For the first time we test head-to-head the performance of five common hippocampal labeling protocols for multi-atlas based segmentation, using both the Sunnybrook Longitudinal Dementia Study and the entire Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 1 (ADNI-1) baseline and 24-month dataset. We based these atlas libraries on the protocols of (Haller et al., 1997; Killiany et al., 1993; Malykhin et al., 2007; Pantel et al., 2000; Pruessner et al., 2000), and a single operator performed all manual tracings to generate de facto "ground truth" labels. All methods distinguished between normal elders, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD in the expected directions, and showed comparable correlations with measures of episodic memory performance. Only more inclusive protocols distinguished between stable MCI and MCI-to-AD converters, and had slightly better associations with episodic memory. Moreover, we demonstrate that protocols including more posterior anatomy and dorsal white matter compartments furnish the best voxel-overlap accuracies (Dice Similarity Coefficient=0.87-0.89), compared to expert manual tracings, and achieve the smallest sample sizes required to power clinical trials in MCI and AD. The greatest distribution of errors was localized to the caudal hippocampus and the alveus-fimbria compartment when these regions were excluded. The definition of the medial body did not significantly alter accuracy among more comprehensive protocols. Voxel-overlap accuracies between automatic and manual labels were lower for the more pathologically heterogeneous Sunnybrook study in comparison to the ADNI-1 sample. Finally, accuracy among protocols appears to significantly differ the most in AD subjects compared to MCI and normal elders. Together, these results suggest that selection of a candidate protocol for fully automatic multi-template based segmentation in AD can influence both segmentation accuracy when compared to expert manual labels and performance as a biomarker in MCI and AD.

Dataset Information

On brain atlas choice and automatic segmentation methods: a comparison of MAPER & FreeSurfer using three atlas databases.

Publications

On brain atlas choice and automatic segmentation methods: a comparison of MAPER & FreeSurfer using three atlas databases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets