Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 414

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information

Klein, Stefan, van der Heide, Uulke A., Lips, Irene M., van Vulpen, Marco, Staring, Marius, Pluim, Josien P. W.·2008·Medical Physics

Abstract

An automatic method for delineating the prostate (including the seminal vesicles) in three‐dimensional magnetic resonance scans is presented. The method is based on nonrigid registration of a set of prelabeled atlas images. Each atlas image is nonrigidly registered with the target patient image. Subsequently, the deformed atlas label images are fused to yield a single segmentation of the patient image. The proposed method is evaluated on 50 clinical scans, which were manually segmented by three experts. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) is used to quantify the overlap between the automatic and manual segmentations. We investigate the impact of several factors on the performance of the segmentation method. For the registration, two similarity measures are compared: Mutual information and a localized version of mutual information. The latter turns out to be superior (median , with a paired two‐sided Wilcoxon test) and comes at no added computational cost, thanks to the use of a novel stochastic optimization scheme. For the atlas fusion step we consider a majority voting rule and the “simultaneous truth and performance level estimation” algorithm, both with and without a preceding atlas selection stage. The differences between the various fusion methods appear to be small and mostly not statistically significant . To assess the influence of the atlas composition, two atlas sets are compared. The first set consists of 38 scans of healthy volunteers. The second set is constructed by a leave‐one‐out approach using the 50 clinical scans that are used for evaluation. The second atlas set gives substantially better performance , stressing the importance of a careful atlas definition. With the best settings, a median DSC of around 0.85 is achieved, which is close to the median interobserver DSC of 0.87. The segmentation quality is especially good at the prostate‐rectum interface, where the segmentation error remains below in 50% of the cases and below in 75% of the cases.

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 · 10.1118/1.2842076

Cites

18 of 18 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

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

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 414

Metadata

Authors
Klein, S., van der Heide, U. A., Lips, I. M., van Vulpen, M., Staring, M., & Pluim, J. P. W.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-03-14
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
1407-1417
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2052617496
Cited by
414
References
18
FWCI
28.64
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: Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.2842076
The paper
Klein, S., van der Heide, U. A., Lips, I. M., van Vulpen, M., Staring, M., & Pluim, J. P. W. (2008). Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2842076

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.