| Title |
A comparative study of segmentation techniques for the quantification of brain subcortical volume
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brain Imaging and Behavior, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11682-018-9835-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theophilus N. Akudjedu, Leila Nabulsi, Migle Makelyte, Cathy Scanlon, Sarah Hehir, Helen Casey, Srinath Ambati, Joanne Kenney, Stefani O’Donoghue, Emma McDermott, Liam Kilmartin, Peter Dockery, Colm McDonald, Brian Hallahan, Dara M. Cannon |
| Abstract |
Manual tracing of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represents the gold standard for segmentation in clinical neuropsychiatric research studies, however automated approaches are increasingly used due to its time limitations. The accuracy of segmentation techniques for subcortical structures has not been systematically investigated in large samples. We compared the accuracy of fully automated [(i) model-based: FSL-FIRST; (ii) patch-based: volBrain], semi-automated (FreeSurfer) and stereological (Measure®) segmentation techniques with manual tracing (ITK-SNAP) for delineating volumes of the caudate (easy-to-segment) and the hippocampus (difficult-to-segment). High resolution 1.5 T T1-weighted MR images were obtained from 177 patients with major psychiatric disorders and 104 healthy participants. The relative consistency (partial correlation), absolute agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) and potential technique bias (Bland-Altman plots) of each technique was compared with manual segmentation. Each technique yielded high correlations (0.77-0.87, p < 0.0001) and moderate ICC's (0.28-0.49) relative to manual segmentation for the caudate. For the hippocampus, stereology yielded good consistency (0.52-0.55, p < 0.0001) and ICC (0.47-0.49), whereas automated and semi-automated techniques yielded poor ICC (0.07-0.10) and moderate consistency (0.35-0.62, p < 0.0001). Bias was least using stereology for segmentation of the hippocampus and using FreeSurfer for segmentation of the caudate. In a typical neuropsychiatric MRI dataset, automated segmentation techniques provide good accuracy for an easy-to-segment structure such as the caudate, whereas for the hippocampus, a reasonable correlation with volume but poor absolute agreement was demonstrated. This indicates manual or stereological volume estimation should be considered for studies that require high levels of precision such as those with small sample size. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 16% |
| Engineering | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#862
of 1,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,984
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#23
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.