A novel quantitative cross-validation of different cortical surface reconstruction algorithms using MRI phantom
Abstract
Cortical surface reconstruction is important for functional brain mapping and morphometric analysis of the brain cortex. Several methods have been developed for the faithful reconstruction of surface models which represent the true cortical surface in both geometry and topology. However, there has been no explicit comparison study among those methods because each method has its own procedures, file formats, coordinate systems, and use of the reconstructed surface. There has also been no explicit evaluation method except visual inspection to validate the whole-cortical surface models quantitatively. In this study, we presented a novel phantom-based validation method of the cortical surface reconstruction algorithm and quantitatively cross-validated the three most prominent cortical surface reconstruction algorithms which are used in Freesurfer, BrainVISA, and CLASP, respectively. The validation included geometrical accuracy and mesh characteristics such as Euler number, fractal dimension (FD), total surface area, and local density of points. CLASP showed the best geometric/topologic accuracy and mesh characteristics such as FD and total surface area compared to Freesurfer and BrainVISA. In the validation of local density of points, Freesurfer and BrainVISA showed more even distribution of points on the cortical surface compared to CLASP.
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?
The CLASP cortical thickness algorithm has been validated using manual measurements and simulation approaches.
“Validation of the CLASP cortical thickness algorithm has been done using both manual measurements (Kabani et al. 2001) and simulation approaches (Lerch and Evans 2005;Lee et al. 2006).”
From Developmental Changes in Organization of Structural Brain Networks (2013) · cites this paper as Lee et al. 2006
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 108
- Authors
- Lee, J. K., Lee, J.-M., Kim, J. S., Kim, I. Y., Evans, A. C., & Kim, S. I.
- Affiliations
- Hanyang University (KR)
- Seoul National University (KR)
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Jong-Min
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 572-584
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083837365
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 11.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- cortical surface reconstruction, MRI phantom, algorithm comparison, FreeSurfer, CLASP, quantitative validation, geometric accuracy, topological accuracy, fractal dimension, Euler characteristic, point density, functional brain mapping, brain morphometry
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pia Mater, Reproducibility of Results, Phantoms, Imaging
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