UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/post_award/post_award_contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Brain MAPS: an automated, accurate and robust brain extraction technique using a template library.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Publication Sub Type:
    Journal Article
  • Authors:
    Leung KK, Barnes J, Modat M, Ridgway GR, Bartlett JW, Fox NC, Ourselin S, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
  • Publication date:
    01/04/2011
  • Pagination:
    1091, 1108
  • Journal:
    Neuroimage
  • Volume:
    55
  • Issue:
    3
  • Status:
    Published
  • Country:
    United States
  • PII:
    S1053-8119(10)01670-8
  • Language:
    eng
  • Keywords:
    Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Artifacts, Atlases as Topic, Atrophy, Automatic Data Processing, Brain, Brain Mapping, Databases, Factual, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract
Whole brain extraction is an important pre-processing step in neuroimage analysis. Manual or semi-automated brain delineations are labour-intensive and thus not desirable in large studies, meaning that automated techniques are preferable. The accuracy and robustness of automated methods are crucial because human expertise may be required to correct any suboptimal results, which can be very time consuming. We compared the accuracy of four automated brain extraction methods: Brain Extraction Tool (BET), Brain Surface Extractor (BSE), Hybrid Watershed Algorithm (HWA) and a Multi-Atlas Propagation and Segmentation (MAPS) technique we have previously developed for hippocampal segmentation. The four methods were applied to extract whole brains from 682 1.5T and 157 3T T(1)-weighted MR baseline images from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Semi-automated brain segmentations with manual editing and checking were used as the gold-standard to compare with the results. The median Jaccard index of MAPS was higher than HWA, BET and BSE in 1.5T and 3T scans (p<0.05, all tests), and the 1st to 99th centile range of the Jaccard index of MAPS was smaller than HWA, BET and BSE in 1.5T and 3T scans ( p<0.05, all tests). HWA and MAPS were found to be best at including all brain tissues (median false negative rate ≤0.010% for 1.5T scans and ≤0.019% for 3T scans, both methods). The median Jaccard index of MAPS were similar in both 1.5T and 3T scans, whereas those of BET, BSE and HWA were higher in 1.5T scans than 3T scans (p<0.05, all tests). We found that the diagnostic group had a small effect on the median Jaccard index of all four methods. In conclusion, MAPS had relatively high accuracy and low variability compared to HWA, BET and BSE in MR scans with and without atrophy.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Author
Neurodegenerative Diseases
Author
Dept of Med Phys & Biomedical Eng
Author
Dept of Med Phys & Biomedical Eng
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by