Comparison and Evaluation of Segmentation Techniques for Subcortical Structures in Brain MRI

  • Authors:
  • Kolawole O. Babalola;Brian Patenaude;Paul Aljabar;Julia Schnabel;David Kennedy;William Crum;Stephen Smith;Tim F. Cootes;Mark Jenkinson;Daniel Rueckert

  • Affiliations:
  • Division of Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering (ISBE), University of Manchester, UK;FMRIB Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, UK OX3 9DU;Department of Computing, Imperial College London, , UK SW7 2BZ;Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK OX1 3PJ;MGH/MIT/HMS Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, USA MA 02129;Institute of Psychiatry, , London, UK SE5 8AF;FMRIB Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, UK OX3 9DU;Division of Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering (ISBE), University of Manchester, UK;FMRIB Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, UK OX3 9DU;Department of Computing, Imperial College London, , UK SW7 2BZ

  • Venue:
  • MICCAI '08 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - Part I
  • Year:
  • 2008

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The automation of segmentation of medical images is an active research area. However, there has been criticism of the standard of evaluation of methods. We have comprehensively evaluated four novel methods of automatically segmenting subcortical structures using volumetric, spatial overlap and distance-based measures. Two of the methods are atlas-based --- classifier fusion and labelling (CFL) and expectation-maximisation segmentation using a dynamic brain atlas (EMS), and two model-based --- 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 significantly better than the other three methods according to all three classes of metrics.