Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation Through Fusion of Probabilistic Segmentations

Recent research has demonstrated that improved image segmentation can be achieved by multiple template fusion utilizing both label and intensity information. However, intensity weighted fusion approaches use local intensity similarity as a surrogate measure of local template quality for predicting target segmentation and do not seek to characterize template performance. This limits both the usefulness and accuracy of these techniques. Our work here was motivated by the observation that the local intensity similarity is a poor surrogate measure for direct comparison of the template image with the true image target segmentation. Although the true image target segmentation is not available, a high quality estimate can be inferred, and this in turn allows a principled estimate to be made of the local quality of each template at contributing to the target segmentation. We developed a fusion algorithm that uses probabilistic segmentations of the target image to simultaneously infer a reference standard segmentation of the target image and the local quality of each probabilistic segmentation. The concept of comparing templates to a hidden reference standard segmentation enables accurate assessments of the contribution of each template to inferring the target image segmentation to be made, and in practice leads to excellent target image segmentation. We have used the new algorithm for the multiple-template-based segmentation and parcellation of magnetic resonance images of the brain. Intensity and label map images of each one of the aligned templates are used to train a local Gaussian mixture model based classifier. Then, each classifier is used to compute the probabilistic segmentations of the target image. Finally, the generated probabilistic segmentations are fused together using the new fusion algorithm to obtain the segmentation of the target image. We evaluated our method in comparison to other state-of-the-art segmentation methods. We demonstrated that our new fusion algorithm has higher segmentation performance than these methods.

[1]  O. Commowick,et al.  Incorporating Priors on Expert Performance Parameters for Segmentation Validation and Label Fusion: A Maximum a Posteriori STAPLE , 2010, MICCAI.

[2]  Paul M. Thompson,et al.  Inferring brain variability from diffeomorphic deformations of currents: An integrative approach , 2008, Medical Image Anal..

[3]  Paul A. Yushkevich,et al.  Regression-based label fusion for multi-atlas segmentation , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[4]  Gilles Celeux,et al.  EM procedures using mean field-like approximations for Markov model-based image segmentation , 2003, Pattern Recognit..

[5]  Simon K. Warfield,et al.  Using Frankenstein's Creature Paradigm to Build a Patient Specific Atlas , 2009, MICCAI.

[6]  Bennett A. Landman,et al.  Formulating Spatially Varying Performance in the Statistical Fusion Framework , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  James V. Miller,et al.  Atlas stratification , 2007, Medical Image Anal..

[8]  Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh,et al.  Hippocampal volumetry for lateralization of temporal lobe epilepsy: Automated versus manual methods , 2011, NeuroImage.

[9]  K. Zilles,et al.  Brain atlases - a new research tool , 1994, Trends in Neurosciences.

[10]  Christos Davatzikos,et al.  Corrigendum to “Non-diffeomorphic registration of brain tumor images by simulating tissue loss and tumor growth” [NeuroImage 46 (2009) 762–774] , 2009, NeuroImage.

[11]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: Atlas selection and its effect on accuracy , 2009, NeuroImage.

[12]  Michael Weiner,et al.  Nearly automatic segmentation of hippocampal subfields in in vivo focal T2-weighted MRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[13]  Simon K. Warfield,et al.  SoftSTAPLE: Truth and performance-level estimation from probabilistic segmentations , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[14]  D. Kennedy,et al.  Anatomic segmentation and volumetric calculations in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. , 1989, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[15]  Juha Koikkalainen,et al.  Fast and robust multi-atlas segmentation of brain magnetic resonance images , 2010, NeuroImage.

[16]  Simon K. Warfield,et al.  Estimating A Reference Standard Segmentation With Spatially Varying Performance Parameters: Local MAP STAPLE , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  Carlos Ortiz-de-Solorzano,et al.  Combination Strategies in Multi-Atlas Image Segmentation: Application to Brain MR Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Jerry L. Prince,et al.  Robust Statistical Fusion of Image Labels , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[19]  William M. Wells,et al.  Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[20]  Nicolas Cherbuin,et al.  Optimal weights for local multi-atlas fusion using supervised learning and dynamic information (SuperDyn): Validation on hippocampus segmentation , 2011, NeuroImage.

[21]  D. Kennedy,et al.  Magnetic resonance technology in human brain science: Blueprint for a program based upon morphometry , 1989, Brain and Development.

[22]  Ross T. Whitaker,et al.  On the Manifold Structure of the Space of Brain Images , 2009, MICCAI.

[23]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Label Fusion in Atlas-Based Segmentation Using a Selective and Iterative Method for Performance Level Estimation (SIMPLE) , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[24]  L. Brouwer Über Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten , 1911 .

[25]  Brian B. Avants,et al.  The optimal template effect in hippocampus studies of diseased populations , 2010, NeuroImage.

[26]  Tina Kapur,et al.  Model based three dimensional medical image segmentation , 1999 .

[27]  L. Brouwer Über Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten , 1921 .

[28]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  STEPS: Similarity and Truth Estimation for Propagated Segmentations and its application to hippocampal segmentation and brain parcelation , 2013, Medical Image Anal..

[29]  Mert R. Sabuncu,et al.  A Generative Model for Image Segmentation Based on Label Fusion , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[30]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Automatic anatomical brain MRI segmentation combining label propagation and decision fusion , 2006, NeuroImage.

[31]  Simon K. Warfield,et al.  A Continuous STAPLE for Scalar, Vector, and Tensor Images: An Application to DTI Analysis , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[32]  Dinggang Shen,et al.  Non-diffeomorphic registration of brain tumor images by simulating tissue loss and tumor growth , 2009, NeuroImage.

[33]  R. Woods,et al.  Mathematical/computational challenges in creating deformable and probabilistic atlases of the human brain , 2000, Human brain mapping.

[34]  Bennett A Landman,et al.  Non-local statistical label fusion for multi-atlas segmentation , 2013, Medical Image Anal..

[35]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Adaptive local multi-atlas segmentation: Application to the heart and the caudate nucleus , 2010, Medical Image Anal..

[36]  Torsten Rohlfing,et al.  Expectation Maximization Strategies for Multi-atlas Multi-label Segmentation , 2003, IPMI.

[37]  A. Toga,et al.  Three-Dimensional Statistical Analysis of Sulcal Variability in the Human Brain , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  Bennett A. Landman,et al.  Robust Statistical Label Fusion Through Consensus Level, Labeler Accuracy, and Truth Estimation (COLLATE) , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[39]  Torsten Rohlfing,et al.  Shape-Based Averaging , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[40]  Paul A. Yushkevich,et al.  Multi-Atlas Segmentation with Joint Label Fusion , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.