↓ Skip to main content

Automatic spinal cord localization, robust to MRI contrasts using global curve optimization

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Image Analysis, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
96 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.
Article details
Title
Automatic spinal cord localization, robust to MRI contrasts using global curve optimization
Published in
Medical Image Analysis, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.media.2017.12.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

During the last two decades, MRI has been increasingly used for providing valuable quantitative information about spinal cord morphometry, such as quantification of the spinal cord atrophy in various diseases. However, despite the significant improvement of MR sequences adapted to the spinal cord, automatic image processing tools for spinal cord MRI data are not yet as developed as for the brain. There is nonetheless great interest in fully automatic and fast processing methods to be able to propose quantitative analysis pipelines on large datasets without user bias. The first step of most of these analysis pipelines is to detect the spinal cord, which is challenging to achieve automatically across the broad range of MRI contrasts, field of view, resolutions and pathologies. In this paper, a fully automated, robust and fast method for detecting the spinal cord centerline on MRI volumes is introduced. The algorithm uses a global optimization scheme that attempts to strike a balance between a probabilistic localization map of the spinal cord center point and the overall spatial consistency of the spinal cord centerline (i.e. the rostro-caudal continuity of the spinal cord). Additionally, a new post-processing feature, which aims to automatically split brain and spine regions is introduced, to be able to detect a consistent spinal cord centerline, independently from the field of view. We present data on the validation of the proposed algorithm, known as "OptiC", from a large dataset involving 20 centers, 4 contrasts (T2-weighted n = 287, T1-weighted n = 120, T2∗-weighted n = 307, diffusion-weighted n = 90), 501 subjects including 173 patients with a variety of neurologic diseases. Validation involved the gold-standard centerline coverage, the mean square error between the true and predicted centerlines and the ability to accurately separate brain and spine regions. Overall, OptiC was able to cover 98.77% of the gold-standard centerline, with a mean square error of 1.02 mm. OptiC achieved superior results compared to a state-of-the-art spinal cord localization technique based on the Hough transform, especially on pathological cases with an averaged mean square error of 1.08 mm vs. 13.16 mm (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p-value < .01). Images containing brain regions were identified with a 99% precision, on which brain and spine regions were separated with a distance error of 9.37 mm compared to ground-truth. Validation results on a challenging dataset suggest that OptiC could reliably be used for subsequent quantitative analyses tasks, opening the door to more robust analysis on pathological cases.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Neuroscience 11 11%
Engineering 11 11%
Computer Science 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 39 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,263,639
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Medical Image Analysis
#270
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,136
of 446,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Image Analysis
#3
of 15 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 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 446,025 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.