Cited by 276Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment

Decision Forests for Tissue-Specific Segmentation of High-Grade Gliomas in Multi-channel MR

Open access
Zikic, Darko, Glocker, Ben, Konukoglu, Ender, Criminisi, Antonio, Demiralp, C., Shotton, J., Thomas, O. M., Das, T. +2 more·2012·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Abstract

We present a method for automatic segmentation of high-grade gliomas and their subregions from multi-channel MR images. Besides segmenting the gross tumor, we also differentiate between active cells, necrotic core, and edema. Our discriminative approach is based on decision forests using context-aware spatial features, and integrates a generative model of tissue appearance, by using the probabilities obtained by tissue-specific Gaussian mixture models as additional input for the forest. Our method classifies the individual tissue types simultaneously, which has the potential to simplify the classification task. The approach is computationally efficient and of low model complexity. The validation is performed on a labeled database of 40 multi-channel MR images, including DTI. We assess the effects of using DTI, and varying the amount of training data. Our segmentation results are highly accurate, and compare favorably to the state of the art.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-642-33454-2_46

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Bauer, S., Nolte, L.-P., Reyes, M.: Fully Automatic Segmentation of Brain Tumor Images Using Support Vector Machine Classification in Combination with Hier- archical Conditional Random Field Regularization. In: Fichtinger, G., Martel, A., Peters, T. (eds.) MICCAI 2011, Part III. LNCS, vol. 6893, pp. 354-361. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
  2. Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1), 5-32 (2001)
  3. Corso, J.J., Sharon, E., Dube, S., El-saden, S., Sinha, U., Yuille, A.: Efficient multilevel brain tumor segmentation with integrated bayesian model classification. IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging 27(5) (2008)
  4. Gooya, A., Pohl, K.M., Bilello, M., Biros, G., Davatzikos, C.: Joint Segmentation and Deformable Registration of Brain Scans Guided by a Tumor Growth Model. In: Fichtinger, G., Martel, A., Peters, T. (eds.) MICCAI 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6892, pp. 532-540. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
  5. Görlitz, L., Menze, B.H., Weber, M.-A., Kelm, B.M., Hamprecht, F.A.: Semi- supervised Tumor Detection in Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Images Using Discriminative Random Fields. In: Hamprecht, F.A., Schnörr, C., Jähne, B. (eds.) DAGM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4713, pp. 224-233. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
  6. Jiang, T., Navab, N., Pluim, J.P.W., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6362, pp. 151-159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
  7. Schmidt, M., Levner, I., Greiner, R., Murtha, A., Bistriz, A.: Segmenting brain tumors using alignment-based features. In: Proc. of ICMLA (2005)
  8. Wels, M., Carneiro, G., Aplas, A., Huber, M., Hornegger, J., Comaniciu, D.: A Dis- criminative Model-Constrained Graph Cuts Approach to Fully Automated Pedi- atric Brain Tumor Segmentation in 3-D MRI. In: Metaxas, D., Axel, L., Fichtinger, G., Székely, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5241, pp. 67-75. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zikic, D., Glocker, B., Konukoglu, E., Criminisi, A., Demiralp, C., Shotton, J., Thomas, O. M., Das, T., Jena, R., & Price, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2012
Volume
15
Issue
Pt 3
Pages
369-376
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W1524094261
Cited by
276
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 15
FWCI
12.50
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR/CS/009/011)
  • NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
high-grade glioma, brain tumor segmentation, decision forest, multi-channel MRI, diffusion tensor imaging, tissue classification, necrotic core, edema, Gaussian mixture model
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Neoplasms, Glioma, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review