↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating accuracy of striatal, pallidal, and thalamic segmentation methods: Comparing automated approaches to manual delineation

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating accuracy of striatal, pallidal, and thalamic segmentation methods: Comparing automated approaches to manual delineation
Published in
NeuroImage, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Makowski, Sophie Béland, Penelope Kostopoulos, Nikhil Bhagwat, Gabriel A. Devenyi, Ashok K. Malla, Ridha Joober, Martin Lepage, M. Mallar Chakravarty

Abstract

Accurate automated quantification of subcortical structures is a greatly pursued endeavour in neuroimaging. In an effort to establish the validity and reliability of these methods in defining the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus, we investigated differences in volumetry between manual delineation and automated segmentations derived by widely used FreeSurfer and FSL packages, and a more recent segmentation method, the MAGeT-Brain algorithm. In a first set of experiments, the basal ganglia and thalamus of thirty subjects (15 first episode psychosis [FEP], 15 controls) were manually defined and compared to the three automated methods. Our results suggest that all methods overestimate volumes compared to the manually derived "gold standard", with the least pronounced differences produced using MAGeT. The least between-method variability was noted for the striatum, whereas marked differences between manual segmentation and MAGeT compared to FreeSurfer and FSL emerged for the globus pallidus and thalamus. Correlations between manual segmentation and automated methods were strongest for MAGeT (range: 0.51 to 0.92; p<0.01, corrected), whereas FreeSurfer and FSL showed moderate to strong Pearson correlations (range 0.44-0.86; p<0.05, corrected), with the exception of FreeSurfer pallidal (r=0.31, p=0.10) and FSL thalamic segmentations (r=0.37, p=0.051). Bland-Altman plots highlighted a tendency for greater volumetric differences between manual labels and automated methods at the lower end of the distribution (i.e. smaller structures), which was most prominent for bilateral thalamus across automated pipelines, and left globus pallidus for FSL. We then went on to examine volume and shape of the basal ganglia structures using automated techniques in 135 FEP patients and 88 controls. The striatum and globus pallidus were significantly larger in FEP patients compared to controls bilaterally, irrespective of the method used. MAGeT-Brain was more sensitive to shape-based group differences, and uncovered widespread surface expansions in the striatum and globus pallidus bilaterally in FEP patients compared to controls, and surface contractions in bilateral thalamus (FDR-corrected). By contrast, after using a recommended cluster-wise thresholding method, FSL only detected differences in the right ventral striatum (FEP>Control) and one cluster of the left thalamus (Control>FEP). These results suggest that different automated pipelines segment subcortical structures with varying degrees of variability compared to manual methods, with particularly pronounced differences found with FreeSurfer and FSL for the globus pallidus and thalamus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 24%
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 21 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Psychology 13 12%
Computer Science 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,790,274
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#3,286
of 12,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,010
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#73
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.