Cited by 817Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Deep convolutional neural networks for multi-modality isointense infant brain image segmentation

Open access
Zhang, Wenlu, Li, Rongjian, Deng, Houtao, Wang, Li, Lin, Weili, Ji, Shuiwang, Shen, Dinggang·2015·NeuroImage

Abstract

The segmentation of infant brain tissue images into white matter (WM), gray matter (GM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) plays an important role in studying early brain development in health and disease. In the isointense stage (approximately 6-8 months of age), WM and GM exhibit similar levels of intensity in both T1 and T2 MR images, making the tissue segmentation very challenging. Only a small number of existing methods have been designed for tissue segmentation in this isointense stage; however, they only used a single T1 or T2 images, or the combination of T1 and T2 images. In this paper, we propose to use deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for segmenting isointense stage brain tissues using multi-modality MR images. CNNs are a type of deep models in which trainable filters and local neighborhood pooling operations are applied alternatingly on the raw input images, resulting in a hierarchy of increasingly complex features. Specifically, we used multi-modality information from T1, T2, and fractional anisotropy (FA) images as inputs and then generated the segmentation maps as outputs. The multiple intermediate layers applied convolution, pooling, normalization, and other operations to capture the highly nonlinear mappings between inputs and outputs. We compared the performance of our approach with that of the commonly used segmentation methods on a set of manually segmented isointense stage brain images. Results showed that our proposed model significantly outperformed prior methods on infant brain tissue segmentation. In addition, our results indicated that integration of multi-modality images led to significant performance improvement.

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.2014.12.061

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Zhang et al. CNN approach outperforms prior methods and classical ML algorithms using SVM and RF (overall DSC 85.03±2.27 CNN vs 76.95±3.55 SVM, 83.15±2.52 RF).

    “They showed that their CNN approach outperforms prior methods and classical machine learning algorithms using support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF) classifiers (overall DSC performance 85.03% ∓ 2.27% (CNN) vs. 76.95% ∓ 3.55% (SVM), 83.15% ∓ 2.52% (RF)).”
  • Most current popular CNN architectures use patch-wise approach.

    “Most of the current popular architectures [21, 22, 26, 27] use this approach.”
  • Nie et al. semantic-wise FCNs obtained improved results compared to Zhang et al. (overall DSC 85.5 CSF, 87.3 GM, 88.7 WM vs 83.5, 85.2, 86.4).

    “They obtained improved results compared to [27]. Their overall DSC were 85.5% (CSF), 87.3% (GM), and 88.7% (WM) vs. 83.5% (CSF), 85.2 (GM), and 86.4 (WM) by [27].”

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
Zhang, W., Li, R., Deng, H., Wang, L., Lin, W., Ji, S., & Shen, D.
Affiliations
  • Old Dominion University (US)
  • Instacart (United States) (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
  • Ji, Shuiwang
  • Shen, Dinggang
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
108
Pages
214-224
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082526668
Cited by
817
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
66.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DBI-1147134, DBI-1350258)
  • National Institutes of Health (EB006733, EB008374, EB009634, AG041721, MH100217, AG042599)
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 › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
white matter segmentation, gray matter segmentation, cerebrospinal fluid segmentation, multimodal MRI, T1 and T2 MRI, fractional anisotropy, deep convolutional neural networks, brain development
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Infant, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neural Networks, Computer, Anisotropy, White Matter, Gray Matter

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