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
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.
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
Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species
Dice, L. R. (1945) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1932409 · Cited by 11,874
Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast mr images
Rueckert, D., Sonoda, L. I., Hayes, C., Hill, D. L. G., Leach, M. O., & Hawkes, D. J. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.796284 · Cited by 5,265
Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information
Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., & Suetens, P. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.563664 · Cited by 4,547
Alignment by Maximization of Mutual Information
Viola, P., & Wells III, W. M. (1997) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/a:1007958904918 · Cited by 2,610
An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment
Studholme, C., Hill, D. L. G., & Hawkes, D. J. (1999) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/s0031-3203(98)00091-0 · Cited by 2,180
Warfield, S. K., Zou, K. H., & Wells, W. M. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2004.828354 · Cited by 2,072
Generalized Overlap Measures for Evaluation and Validation in Medical Image Analysis
Crum, W. R., Camara, O., & Hill, D. L. G. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2006.880587 · Cited by 776
Optimization of mutual information for multiresolution image registration
Unser, M., & Thevenaz, P. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/83.887976 · Cited by 697
Rohlfing, T., Brandt, R., Menzel, R., & Maurer, C. R. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.010 · Cited by 573
Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study
Rasch, C., Barillot, I., Remeijer, P., Touw, A., van Herk, M., & Lebesque, J. V. (1999) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00351-4 · Cited by 565
Cited by
Elastix: 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
Self-citationBrock, K. K., Mutic, S., McNutt, T. R., Li, H., & Kessler, M. L. (2017) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.12256 · Cited by 881
Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: Atlas selection and its effect on accuracy
Aljabar, P., Heckemann, R. A., Hammers, A., Hajnal, J. V., & Rueckert, D. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.018 · Cited by 868
Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for mri: The promise12 challenge
Litjens, G., Toth, R., van de Ven, W., Hoeks, C., Kerkstra, S., van Ginneken, B., Vincent, G., Guillard, G., Birbeck, N., Zhang, J., et al. (2014) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2013.12.002 · Cited by 857
Combination Strategies in Multi-Atlas Image Segmentation: Application to Brain MR Data
Artaechevarria, X., Munoz-Barrutia, A., & Ortiz-de-Solorzano, C. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2009.2014372 · Cited by 507
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.