↓ Skip to main content

Robust Automated Amygdala Segmentation via Multi-Atlas Diffeomorphic Registration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Robust Automated Amygdala Segmentation via Multi-Atlas Diffeomorphic Registration
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie L. Hanson, Jung W. Suh, Brendon M. Nacewicz, Matthew J. Sutterer, Amelia A. Cayo, Diane E. Stodola, Cory A. Burghy, Hongzhi Wang, Brian B. Avants, Paul A. Yushkevich, Marilyn J. Essex, Seth D. Pollak, Richard J. Davidson

Abstract

Here, we describe a novel method for volumetric segmentation of the amygdala from MRI images collected from 35 human subjects. This approach is adapted from open-source techniques employed previously with the hippocampus (Suh et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011a,b). Using multi-atlas segmentation and machine learning-based correction, we were able to produce automated amygdala segments with high Dice (Mean = 0.918 for the left amygdala; 0.916 for the right amygdala) and Jaccard coefficients (Mean = 0.850 for the left; 0.846 for the right) compared to rigorously hand-traced volumes. This automated routine also produced amygdala segments with high intra-class correlations (consistency = 0.830, absolute agreement = 0.819 for the left; consistency = 0.786, absolute agreement = 0.783 for the right) and bivariate (r = 0.831 for the left; r = 0.797 for the right) compared to hand-drawn amygdala. Our results are discussed in relation to other cutting-edge segmentation techniques, as well as commonly available approaches to amygdala segmentation (e.g., Freesurfer). We believe this new technique has broad application to research with large sample sizes for which amygdala quantification might be needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 96 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Other 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Student > Master 8 8%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 30%
Neuroscience 20 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 17 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 March 2022.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,064
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,297
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#96
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 250,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.