Cited by 667Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisBrain Tumor Detection and Classification

Multi-atlas segmentation of biomedical images: A survey

Open access
Iglesias, Juan Eugenio, Sabuncu, Mert R.·2015·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

Multi-atlas segmentation (MAS), first introduced and popularized by the pioneering work of Rohlfing, et al. (2004), Klein, et al. (2005), and Heckemann, et al. (2006), is becoming one of the most widely-used and successful image segmentation techniques in biomedical applications. By manipulating and utilizing the entire dataset of "atlases" (training images that have been previously labeled, e.g., manually by an expert), rather than some model-based average representation, MAS has the flexibility to better capture anatomical variation, thus offering superior segmentation accuracy. This benefit, however, typically comes at a high computational cost. Recent advancements in computer hardware and image processing software have been instrumental in addressing this challenge and facilitated the wide adoption of MAS. Today, MAS has come a long way and the approach includes a wide array of sophisticated algorithms that employ ideas from machine learning, probabilistic modeling, optimization, and computer vision, among other fields. This paper presents a survey of published MAS algorithms and studies that have applied these methods to various biomedical problems. In writing this survey, we have three distinct aims. Our primary goal is to document how MAS was originally conceived, later evolved, and now relates to alternative methods. Second, this paper is intended to be a detailed reference of past research activity in MAS, which now spans over a decade (2003-2014) and entails novel methodological developments and application-specific solutions. Finally, our goal is to also present a perspective on the future of MAS, which, we believe, will be one of the dominant approaches in biomedical image segmentation.

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 · 10.1016/j.media.2015.06.012

Cites

267 of 267 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

  • Consensus segmentation using multiple atlases may make segmentation more robust to sporadic registration errors/imperfections.

    “In recent years, methods that use the multi atlas label fusion framework have obtained state-of-the-art accuracy, showing that consensus segmentation using multiple atlases may significantly improve the segmentation accuracy, while making it also more robust to sporadic registration errors/imperfections (Iglesias and Sabuncu, 2015; Warfield, 2017).”

    From A comparison of Freesurfer and multi-atlas MUSE for brain anatomy segmentation: Findings about size and age bias, and inter-scanner stability in multi-site aging studies (2020) · cites this paper as Iglesias and Sabuncu, 2015

    The Historical Introduction describes combining labels from multiple registered atlases by majority voting, which supports the idea of consensus segmentation. But §2.3 (Registration; page unavailable) does not establish greater robustness to sporadic registration errors: it cautions that poor candidates from suboptimal registrations can worsen fusion. The claimed robustness is plausible, but is not stated in the cited passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Consensus segmentation using multiple atlases may significantly improve segmentation accuracy.

    “In recent years, methods that use the multi atlas label fusion framework have obtained state-of-the-art accuracy, showing that consensus segmentation using multiple atlases may significantly improve the segmentation accuracy, while making it also more robust to sporadic registration errors/imperfections (Iglesias and Sabuncu, 2015; Warfield, 2017).”
  • Multi-atlas label fusion methods have obtained state-of-the-art accuracy in recent years.

    “In recent years, methods that use the multi atlas label fusion framework have obtained state-of-the-art accuracy, showing that consensus segmentation using multiple atlases may significantly improve the segmentation accuracy, while making it also more robust to sporadic registration errors/imperfections (Iglesias and Sabuncu, 2015; Warfield, 2017).”
  • Using a library of atlases manually created by experts allows the automated segmentation approach to incorporate knowledge on the appearance and shape of the placenta in a diverse set of subjects and leads to highly robust segmentation results in new subjects.

    “Using a library of atlases manually created by experts allows the automated segmentation approach to incorporate knowledge on the appearance and shape of the placenta in a diverse set of subjects and leads to highly robust segmentation results in new subjects.”
  • Multi-atlas segmentation has been applied successfully to many challenging segmentation problems such as identifying hippocampal subfields in MRI, the spinal cord, and the mitral valve in preoperative 3D echocardiography.

    “This approach has been applied successfully to many challenging segmentation problems 15 such as identifying hippocampal subfields in magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the brain, 17,18 the spinal cord, 19 and the mitral valve in preoperative 3D echocardiography. 20”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Datteri R Asman A Landman B Dawant B Estimation of registration accuracy applied to multiatlas segmentation Proceedings of the 2011 MICCAI Workshop on Multi-Atlas Labeling and Statistical Fusion 2011 78 87
  2. Hollensen C Hansen MF Højgaard L Specht L Larsen R Segmenting the parotid gland using registration and level set methods 2010 Beijing MICCAI: Grand Challenges in Medical Image Analysis: Head & Neck Autosegmentation Challenge
  3. Li B Panda S Xu Z Asman AJ Shanahan PL Abramson RG Landman BA Regression forest region recognition enhances multi-atlas spleen labeling MICCAI Challenge Workshop on Segmentation: Algorithms, Theory and Applications (SATA) 2013 82 92
  4. Ou Y Doshi J Erus G Davatzikos C Attribute similarity and mutual-saliency weighting for registration and label fusion MICCAI Workshop on Multi-Atlas Segmentation 2012 95 98 pp. 95-98
  5. Pieper S Halle M Kikinis R 3D slicer Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, 2004. IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE 2004 632 635

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iglesias, J. E., & Sabuncu, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (ES)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Sabuncu, Mert R.
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
205-219
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1667869507
Cited by
667
References
267
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 7
FWCI
53.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIH (1K25EB013649-01)
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
multi-atlas segmentation, medical image segmentation, anatomical variation, stochastic modeling, optimization, computer vision, machine learning, computational cost
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results

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