Cited by 109Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Comparative assessment of statistical brain MR image segmentation algorithms and their impact on partial volume correction in PET

Zaidi, Habib, Ruest, Torsten, Schoenahl, Frederic, Montandon, Marie-Louise·2006·NeuroImage

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided partial volume effect correction (PVC) in brain positron emission tomography (PET) is now a well-established approach to compensate the large bias in the estimate of regional radioactivity concentration, especially for small structures. The accuracy of the algorithms developed so far is, however, largely dependent on the performance of segmentation methods partitioning MRI brain data into its main classes, namely gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). A comparative evaluation of three brain MRI segmentation algorithms using simulated and clinical brain MR data was performed, and subsequently their impact on PVC in 18F-FDG and 18F-DOPA brain PET imaging was assessed. Two algorithms, the first is bundled in the Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM2) package while the other is the Expectation Maximization Segmentation (EMS) algorithm, incorporate a priori probability images derived from MR images of a large number of subjects. The third, here referred to as the HBSA algorithm, is a histogram-based segmentation algorithm incorporating an Expectation Maximization approach to model a four-Gaussian mixture for both global and local histograms. Simulated under different combinations of noise and intensity non-uniformity, MR brain phantoms with known true volumes for the different brain classes were generated. The algorithms' performance was checked by calculating the kappa index assessing similarities with the "ground truth" as well as multiclass type I and type II errors including misclassification rates. The impact of image segmentation algorithms on PVC was then quantified using clinical data. The segmented tissues of patients' brain MRI were given as input to the region of interest (RoI)-based geometric transfer matrix (GTM) PVC algorithm, and quantitative comparisons were made. The results of digital MRI phantom studies suggest that the use of HBSA produces the best performance for WM classification. For GM classification, it is suggested to use the EMS. Segmentation performed on clinical MRI data show quite substantial differences, especially when lesions are present. For the particular case of PVC, SPM2 and EMS algorithms show very similar results and may be used interchangeably. The use of HBSA is not recommended for PVC. The partial volume corrected activities in some regions of the brain show quite large relative differences when performing paired analysis on 2 algorithms, implying a careful choice of the segmentation algorithm for GTM-based PVC.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.031

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • The accuracy of PVC algorithms is highly dependent on the degree of accuracy achieved by the MRI-PET realignment and MRI segmentation procedures.

    “Thirdly, we admit that the accuracy of PVC algorithms is highly dependent on the degree of accuracy achieved by the MRI-PET realignment and MRI segmentation procedures, as assessed in many previous studies (for reviews, see [61,74,88]).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zaidi, H., Ruest, T., Schoenahl, F., & Montandon, M.-L.
Affiliations
University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Zaidi, Habib
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
1591-1607
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166728875
Cited by
108
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (SNSF 3152A0-102143)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
brain MRI segmentation, partial volume correction, PET, cerebrospinal fluid, expectation-maximization segmentation, histogram-based segmentation, 18F-FDG PET, 18F-DOPA PET, MRI phantom, statistical parametric mapping
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Dihydroxyphenylalanine, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography

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