Cited by 177Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Imaging and Analysis

A learning-based wrapper method to correct systematic errors in automatic image segmentation: Consistently improved performance in hippocampus, cortex and brain segmentation

Open access
Wang, Hongzhi, Das, Sandhitsu R., Suh, Jung Wook, Altinay, Murat, Pluta, John, Craige, Caryne, Avants, Brian, Yushkevich, Paul A.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

We propose a simple but generally applicable approach to improving the accuracy of automatic image segmentation algorithms relative to manual segmentations. The approach is based on the hypothesis that a large fraction of the errors produced by automatic segmentation are systematic, i.e., occur consistently from subject to subject, and serves as a wrapper method around a given host segmentation method. The wrapper method attempts to learn the intensity, spatial and contextual patterns associated with systematic segmentation errors produced by the host method on training data for which manual segmentations are available. The method then attempts to correct such errors in segmentations produced by the host method on new images. One practical use of the proposed wrapper method is to adapt existing segmentation tools, without explicit modification, to imaging data and segmentation protocols that are different from those on which the tools were trained and tuned. An open-source implementation of the proposed wrapper method is provided, and can be applied to a wide range of image segmentation problems. The wrapper method is evaluated with four host brain MRI segmentation methods: hippocampus segmentation using FreeSurfer (Fischl et al., 2002); hippocampus segmentation using multi-atlas label fusion (Artaechevarria et al., 2009); brain extraction using BET (Smith, 2002); and brain tissue segmentation using FAST (Zhang et al., 2001). The wrapper method generates 72%, 14%, 29% and 21% fewer erroneously segmented voxels than the respective host segmentation methods. In the hippocampus segmentation experiment with multi-atlas label fusion as the host method, the average Dice overlap between reference segmentations and segmentations produced by the wrapper method is 0.908 for normal controls and 0.893 for patients with mild cognitive impairment. Average Dice overlaps of 0.964, 0.905 and 0.951 are obtained for brain extraction, white matter segmentation and gray matter segmentation, respectively.

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.neuroimage.2011.01.006

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, H., Das, S. R., Suh, J. W., Altinay, M., Pluta, J., Craige, C., Avants, B., & Yushkevich, P. A.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Hongzhi
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
968-985
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053383165
Cited by
177
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
18.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R21 NS061111)
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
wrapper methods, brain MRI segmentation, hippocampus segmentation, brain extraction, brain tissue segmentation, white matter segmentation, gray matter segmentation, multi-atlas label fusion, FreeSurfer, BET, spark plasma sintering, mild cognitive impairment
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Artificial Intelligence, Atlases as Topic, Brain, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Software, Databases, Factual

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