Local appearance features for robust MRI brain structure segmentation across scanning protocols

Segmentation of brain structures in magnetic resonance images is an important task in neuro image analysis. Several papers on this topic have shown the benefit of supervised classification based on local appearance features, often combined with atlas-based approaches. These methods require a representative annotated training set and therefore often do not perform well if the target image is acquired on a different scanner or with a different acquisition protocol than the training images. Assuming that the appearance of the brain is determined by the underlying brain tissue distribution and that brain tissue classification can be performed robustly for images obtained with different protocols, we propose to derive appearance features from brain-tissue density maps instead of directly from the MR images. We evaluated this approach on hippocampus segmentation in two sets of images acquired with substantially different imaging protocols and on different scanners. While a combination of conventional appearance features trained on data from a different scanner with multi-atlas segmentation performed poorly with an average Dice overlap of 0.698, the local appearance model based on the new acquisition-independent features significantly improved (0.783) over atlas-based segmentation alone (0.728).

[1]  Liana G. Apostolova,et al.  Comparison of AdaBoost and Support Vector Machines for Detecting Alzheimer's Disease Through Automated Hippocampal Segmentation , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  Norbert Schuff,et al.  Automated cross-sectional and longitudinal hippocampal volume measurement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease , 2010, NeuroImage.

[4]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Improving intersubject image registration using tissue-class information benefits robustness and accuracy of multi-atlas based anatomical segmentation , 2010, NeuroImage.

[5]  Josef Kittler,et al.  Moderating k-NN Classifiers , 2002, Pattern Analysis & Applications.

[6]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  LEAP: Learning embeddings for atlas propagation , 2010, NeuroImage.

[7]  Stefan Klein,et al.  Automated Brain Structure Segmentation Based on Atlas Registration and Appearance Models , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[8]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Automatic detection and quantification of hippocampal atrophy on MRI in temporal lobe epilepsy: A proof-of-principle study , 2007, NeuroImage.

[9]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Unified segmentation , 2005, NeuroImage.

[10]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  elastix: A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Wiro J. Niessen,et al.  Multi-spectral brain tissue segmentation using automatically trained k-Nearest-Neighbor classification , 2007, NeuroImage.

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

[13]  Michael Weiner,et al.  and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative* , 2007 .

[14]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Wiro J. Niessen,et al.  The Rotterdam Scan Study: design and update up to 2012 , 2011, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[16]  Xiao Han,et al.  Atlas Renormalization for Improved Brain MR Image Segmentation Across Scanner Platforms , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  Marleen de Bruijne,et al.  Improved Tissue Segmentation by Including an MR Acquisition Model , 2011, MBIA.

[18]  A. Dale,et al.  Whole Brain Segmentation Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain , 2002, Neuron.