The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation
Abstract
The analysis of MR images is evolving from qualitative to quantitative. More and more, the question asked by clinicians is how much and where, rather than a simple statement on the presence or absence of abnormalities. The authors present a study in which the results obtained with a semiautomatic, multispectral segmentation technique are quantitatively compared to manually delineated regions. The core of the semiautomatic image analysis system is a supervised artificial neural network classifier augmented with dedicated preand postprocessing algorithms, including anisotropic noise filtering and a surface-fitting method for the correction of spatial intensity variations. The study was focused on the quantitation of white matter lesions in the human brain. A total of 36 images from six brain volumes was analyzed twice by each of two operators, under supervision of a neuroradiologist. Both the intra- and interrater variability of the methods were studied in terms of the average tissue area detected per slice, the correlation coefficients between area measurements, and a measure of similarity derived from the kappa statistic. The results indicate that, compared to a manual method, the use of the semiautomatic technique not only facilitates the analysis of the images, but also has similar or lower intra- and interrater variabilities.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Boone, K. B. (1992) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.1992.00530290141024 · Cited by 400
Cited by
Chicco, D., & Jurman, G. (2020) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7 · Cited by 6,143
A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data
Sled, J. G., Zijdenbos, A. P., & Evans, A. C. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.668698 · Cited by 4,731
Self-citationElastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration
Klein, S., Staring, M., Murphy, K., Viergever, M. A., & Pluim, J. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2009.2035616 · Cited by 4,311
Radiomics: the process and the challenges
Kumar, V., Gu, Y., Basu, S., Berglund, A., Eschrich, S. A., Schabath, M. B., Forster, K., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Dekker, A., Fenstermacher, D., et al. (2012) · Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010 · Cited by 2,258
“The Jaccard Similarity Index (SI) is the measure of the overlap of two or more volumes and is calculated as the ratio of voxel-wise intersection to union of target and reference images [59]:”
BackgroundEvaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration
Klein, A., Andersson, J., Ardekani, B. A., Ashburner, J., Avants, B., Chiang, M.-C., Christensen, G. E., Collins, D. L., Gee, J., Hellier, P., et al. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.037 · Cited by 2,227
Metadata
- Authors
- Zijdenbos, A. P., Dawant, B. M., Margolin, R. A., & Palmer, A. C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 716-724
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132513126
- Cited by
- 1,265
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/42.363096
- The paper
- Zijdenbos, A. P., Dawant, B. M., Margolin, R. A., & Palmer, A. C. (1994). Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.363096
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.