↓ Skip to main content

Contrast-Based Fully Automatic Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities: Method and Validation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Contrast-Based Fully Automatic Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities: Method and Validation
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0048953
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Samaille, Ludovic Fillon, Rémi Cuingnet, Eric Jouvent, Hugues Chabriat, Didier Dormont, Olivier Colliot, Marie Chupin

Abstract

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) on T2 or FLAIR sequences have been commonly observed on MR images of elderly people. They have been associated with various disorders and have been shown to be a strong risk factor for stroke and dementia. WMH studies usually required visual evaluation of WMH load or time-consuming manual delineation. This paper introduced WHASA (White matter Hyperintensities Automated Segmentation Algorithm), a new method for automatically segmenting WMH from FLAIR and T1 images in multicentre studies. Contrary to previous approaches that were based on intensities, this method relied on contrast: non linear diffusion filtering alternated with watershed segmentation to obtain piecewise constant images with increased contrast between WMH and surroundings tissues. WMH were then selected based on subject dependant automatically computed threshold and anatomical information. WHASA was evaluated on 67 patients from two studies, acquired on six different MRI scanners and displaying a wide range of lesion load. Accuracy of the segmentation was assessed through volume and spatial agreement measures with respect to manual segmentation; an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.96 and a mean similarity index (SI) of 0.72 were obtained. WHASA was compared to four other approaches: Freesurfer and a thresholding approach as unsupervised methods; k-nearest neighbours (kNN) and support vector machines (SVM) as supervised ones. For these latter, influence of the training set was also investigated. WHASA clearly outperformed both unsupervised methods, while performing at least as good as supervised approaches (ICC range: 0.87-0.91 for kNN; 0.89-0.94 for SVM. Mean SI: 0.63-0.71 for kNN, 0.67-0.72 for SVM), and did not need any training set.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
India 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 92 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Researcher 22 22%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 20%
Psychology 13 13%
Computer Science 12 12%
Engineering 9 9%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 November 2012.
All research outputs
#17,670,751
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,343
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,288
of 179,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,268
of 4,751 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 179,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,751 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.