In this contribution, a medical software system for volumetric analysis of different cerebral pathologies in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data is presented. The software system is based on a semi-automatic segmentation algorithm and helps to overcome the time-consuming process of volume determination during monitoring of a patient. After imaging, the parameter settings-including a seed point-are set up in the system and an automatic segmentation is performed by a novel graph-based approach. Manually reviewing the result leads to reseeding, adding seed points or an automatic surface mesh generation. The mesh is saved for monitoring the patient and for comparisons with follow-up scans. Based on the mesh, the system performs a voxelization and volume calculation, which leads to diagnosis and therefore further treatment decisions. The overall system has been tested with different cerebral pathologies-glioblastoma multiforme, pituitary adenomas and cerebral aneurysms- and evaluated against manual expert segmentations using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Additionally, intra-physician segmentations have been performed to provide a quality measure for the presented system.
"To quantify the accuracy of gray matter segmentations, we used the Dice coefficient (DC) , a similarity measure related to the Jaccard index. The DC is commonly used to determine accuracy of segmentation methods in neuroimaging settings , ,  and is defined as the size of the union of the segmentation result and the ground truth: DC = 2TP/((FP + TP) + (TP + FN)), that is, the set of True Positives (TP) is divided by the average size of the segmentation result (False Positives (FP) + True Positives (TP)) and the ground truth (True Positives (TP) + False Negatives (FN)). A DC of 0 indicates no overlap; a value of 1 indicates perfect agreement. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Automated gray matter segmentation of magnetic resonance imaging data is essential for morphometric analyses of the brain, particularly when large sample sizes are investigated. However, although detection of small structural brain differences may fundamentally depend on the method used, both accuracy and reliability of different automated segmentation algorithms have rarely been compared. Here, performance of the segmentation algorithms provided by SPM8, VBM8, FSL and FreeSurfer was quantified on simulated and real magnetic resonance imaging data. First, accuracy was assessed by comparing segmentations of twenty simulated and 18 real T1 images with corresponding ground truth images. Second, reliability was determined in ten T1 images from the same subject and in ten T1 images of different subjects scanned twice. Third, the impact of preprocessing steps on segmentation accuracy was investigated. VBM8 showed a very high accuracy and a very high reliability. FSL achieved the highest accuracy but demonstrated poor reliability and FreeSurfer showed the lowest accuracy, but high reliability. An universally valid recommendation on how to implement morphometric analyses is not warranted due to the vast number of scanning and analysis parameters. However, our analysis suggests that researchers can optimize their individual processing procedures with respect to final segmentation quality and exemplifies adequate performance criteria.
PLoS ONE 09/2012; 7(9):e45081. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0045081 · 3.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The basic principle of graph-based approaches for image segmentation is to interpret an image as a graph, where the nodes of the graph represent 2D pixels or 3D voxels of the image. The weighted edges of the graph are obtained by intensity differences in the image. Once the graph is constructed, the minimal cost closed set on the graph can be computed via a polynomial time s-t cut, dividing the graph into two parts: the object and the background. However, no segmentation method provides perfect results, so additional manual editing is required, especially in the sensitive field of medical image processing. In this study, we present a manual refinement method that takes advantage of the basic design of graph-based image segmentation algorithms. Our approach restricts a graph-cut by using additional user-defined seed points to set up fixed nodes in the graph. The advantage is that manual edits can be integrated intuitively and quickly into the segmentation result of a graph-based approach. The method can be applied to both 2D and 3D objects that have to be segmented. Experimental results for synthetic and real images are presented to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach.
Journal of Medical Systems 08/2011; 36(5):2829-39. DOI:10.1007/s10916-011-9761-7 · 2.21 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: We present a rectangle-based segmentation algorithm that sets up a graph and performs a graph cut to separate an object from the background. However, graph-based algorithms distribute the graph's nodes uniformly and equidistantly on the image. Then, a smoothness term is added to force the cut to prefer a particular shape. This strategy does not allow the cut to prefer a certain structure, especially when areas of the object are indistinguishable from the background. We solve this problem by referring to a rectangle shape of the object when sampling the graph nodes, i.e., the nodes are distributed non-uniformly and non-equidistantly on the image. This strategy can be useful, when areas of the object are indistinguishable from the background. For evaluation, we focus on vertebrae images from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) datasets to support the time consuming manual slice-by-slice segmentation performed by physicians. The ground truth of the vertebrae boundaries were manually extracted by two clinical experts (neurological surgeons) with several years of experience in spine surgery and afterwards compared with the automatic segmentation results of the proposed scheme yielding an average Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 90.97±2.2%.
PLoS ONE 02/2012; 7(2):e31064. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0031064 · 3.23 Impact Factor
A. Mathur, N. Jain, C. Kesavadas, B. Thomas, T. Kapilamoorthy
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.