Encoding atlases by randomized classification forests for efficient multi-atlas label propagation
Abstract
We propose a method for multi-atlas label propagation (MALP) based on encoding the individual atlases by randomized classification forests. Most current approaches perform a non-linear registration between all atlases and the target image, followed by a sophisticated fusion scheme. While these approaches can achieve high accuracy, in general they do so at high computational cost. This might negatively affect the scalability to large databases and experimentation. To tackle this issue, we propose to use a small and deep classification forest to encode each atlas individually in reference to an aligned probabilistic atlas, resulting in an Atlas Forest (AF). Our classifier-based encoding differs from current MALP approaches, which represent each point in the atlas either directly as a single image/label value pair, or by a set of corresponding patches. At test time, each AF produces one probabilistic label estimate, and their fusion is done by averaging. Our scheme performs only one registration per target image, achieves good results with a simple fusion scheme, and allows for efficient experimentation. In contrast to standard forest schemes, in which each tree would be trained on all atlases, our approach retains the advantages of the standard MALP framework. The target-specific selection of atlases remains possible, and incorporation of new scans is straightforward without retraining. The evaluation on four different databases shows accuracy within the range of the state of the art at a significantly lower running time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Random Forests operate as voxel-wise classifiers and do not necessarily require preregistration of images at training or testing time.
“Since they operate as voxel-wise classifiers, they do not (necessarily) require preregistration of the images neither at training nor testing time.”
From Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth (2017) · cites this paper as [36]
Cites
Tu, Z. (2005) · Tenth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV'05) Volume 1 · doi:10.1109/iccv.2005.194 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multi-atlas segmentation of biomedical images: A survey
Iglesias, J. E., & Sabuncu, M. R. (2015) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2015.06.012 · Cited by 667 · see citing works
Doshi, J., Erus, G., Ou, Y., Resnick, S. M., Gur, R. C., Gur, R. E., Satterthwaite, T. D., Furth, S., & Davatzikos, C. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.073 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
“…(Wang et al., 2012) (PICSL), a levelset-based label fusion and correction method (SBIA-LevelSet), a new label fusion method that uses a modality independent neighbourhood descriptor (Heinrich et al., 2012) (deedsMIND), and a label propagation method using random forests (Zikic et al., 2014)(MSRC).”
Random forest regression for magnetic resonance image synthesis
Jog, A., Carass, A., Roy, S., Pham, D. L., & Prince, J. L. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2016.08.009 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth
Valindria, V. V., Lavdas, I., Bai, W., Kamnitsas, K., Aboagye, E. O., Rockall, A. G., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2665165 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Self-citationAutomatic Quality Control of Cardiac MRI Segmentation in Large-Scale Population Imaging
Robinson, R., Valindria, V. V., Bai, W., Suzuki, H., Matthews, P. M., Page, C., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66182-7_82 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Zikic, D., Glocker, B., & Criminisi, A.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zikic, D.
- Venue
- Medical Image Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1262-1273
- ISSN
- 1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2035188186
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 14.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
- Keywords
- probabilistic atlases, image registration, brain segmentation, computational efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Documentation, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical
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