Cited by 81Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisBrain Tumor Detection and Classification

Encoding atlases by randomized classification forests for efficient multi-atlas label propagation

Zikic, D., Glocker, B., Criminisi, A.·2014·Medical Image Analysis

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.media.2014.06.010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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