Cited by 861Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationAdvanced Neural Network Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automatic Segmentation of MR Brain Images With a Convolutional Neural Network

Open access
Moeskops, Pim, Viergever, Max A., Mendrik, Adrienne M., de Vries, Linda S., Benders, Manon J. N. L., Isgum, Ivana·2016·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Automatic segmentation in MR brain images is important for quantitative analysis in large-scale studies with images acquired at all ages. This paper presents a method for the automatic segmentation of MR brain images into a number of tissue classes using a convolutional neural network. To ensure that the method obtains accurate segmentation details as well as spatial consistency, the network uses multiple patch sizes and multiple convolution kernel sizes to acquire multi-scale information about each voxel. The method is not dependent on explicit features, but learns to recognise the information that is important for the classification based on training data. The method requires a single anatomical MR image only. The segmentation method is applied to five different data sets: coronal T2-weighted images of preterm infants acquired at 30 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) and 40 weeks PMA, axial T2-weighted images of preterm infants acquired at 40 weeks PMA, axial T1-weighted images of ageing adults acquired at an average age of 70 years, and T1-weighted images of young adults acquired at an average age of 23 years. The method obtained the following average Dice coefficients over all segmented tissue classes for each data set, respectively: 0.87, 0.82, 0.84, 0.86, and 0.91. The results demonstrate that the method obtains accurate segmentations in all five sets, and hence demonstrates its robustness to differences in age and acquisition protocol.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2016.2548501

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. tieleman, 2012, Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude, Neural Netw Mach Learning, 4
  2. landman, 2012, MICCAI 2012 Workshop on Multi-Atlas Labeling
  3. roth, 2014, A new 2.5 D representation for lymph node detection using random sets of deep convolutional neural network observations, Proc MICCAI, 520

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 858

Metadata

Authors
Moeskops, P., Viergever, M. A., Mendrik, A. M., de Vries, L. S., Benders, M. J. N. L., & Isgum, I.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2016-05
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
1252-1261
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2332066482
Cited by
861
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 8
FWCI
79.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
brain tissue segmentation, MR brain images, convolutional neural networks, multi-scale convolution, preterm infants, T2-weighted imaging, T1-weighted imaging, older adults, spatial consistency
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Brain, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neural Networks, Computer, Young Adult

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