4.6 Article

Optimizing the Use of Radiologist Seed Points for Improved Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Segmentation

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 57, 期 11, 页码 2689-2698

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2010.2055865

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); multiple sclerosis (MS); seed points; segmentation; white matter lesions (WMLs)

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many current methods for multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion segmentation require radiologist seed points as input, but do not necessarily allow the expert to work in an intuitive or efficient way. Ironically, most methods also assume that the points are placed optimally. This paper examines how seed points can be processed with intuitive heuristics, which provide improved segmentation accuracy while facilitating quick and natural point placement. Using a large set of MRIs from an MS clinical trial, two radiologists are asked to seed the lesions while unaware that the points would be fed into a classifier, based on Parzen windows, that automatically delineates each marked lesion. To evaluate the impact of the new heuristics, an interactive region-growing method is used to provide ground truth and the Dice coefficient (DC) and Spearman's rank correlation are used as the primary measures of agreement. A stratified analysis is performed to determine the effect on scans with low-, medium-, and high lesion loads. Compared to the unenhanced classifier, the heuristics dramatically improve the DC (+32.91 pt.) and correlation (+0.50) for the scans with low lesion loads, and also improve the DC (+14.55 pt.) and correlation (+0.15) for the scans with medium lesion loads, while having a minimal effect for the scans with high lesion loads, which are already segmented accurately by Parzen windows. With the heuristics, the DC is close to 80% and the correlation is above 0.9 for all three load categories.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据