Cited by 150Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationAcute Ischemic Stroke Management

Classifiers for Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation: A Comparison Study

Open access
Maier, Oskar, Schröder, Christoph, Forkert, Nils Daniel, Martinetz, Thomas, Handels, Heinz·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Ischemic stroke, triggered by an obstruction in the cerebral blood supply, leads to infarction of the affected brain tissue. An accurate and reproducible automatic segmentation is of high interest, since the lesion volume is an important end-point for clinical trials. However, various factors, such as the high variance in lesion shape, location and appearance, render it a difficult task. METHODS: In this article, nine classification methods (e.g. Generalized Linear Models, Random Decision Forests and Convolutional Neural Networks) are evaluated and compared with each other using 37 multiparametric MRI datasets of ischemic stroke patients in the sub-acute phase in terms of their accuracy and reliability for ischemic stroke lesion segmentation. Within this context, a multi-spectral classification approach is compared against mono-spectral classification performance using only FLAIR MRI datasets and two sets of expert segmentations are used for inter-observer agreement evaluation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The results of this study reveal that high-level machine learning methods lead to significantly better segmentation results compared to the rather simple classification methods, pointing towards a difficult non-linear problem. The overall best segmentation results were achieved by a Random Decision Forest and a Convolutional Neural Networks classification approach, even outperforming all previously published results. However, none of the methods tested in this work are capable of achieving results in the range of the human observer agreement and the automatic ischemic stroke lesion segmentation remains a complicated problem that needs to be explored in more detail to improve the segmentation results.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0145118

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Maier et al. [55] results showed that cascaded CNN and random decision forest approaches outperform all other methods for ischemic stroke lesion segmentation.

    “Their results showed that cascaded CNN and random decision forest approaches outperforms all other methods.”

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

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12]von der Gablentz J. Visuelle Exploration von dynamischen Szenen bei Schlaganfallpatienten mit Neglect-Syndrom. PhD Thesis, Universität zu Lübeck; 2012. Available from: http://www.zhb.uni-luebeck.de/epubs/ediss1236.pdf
  2. [15]Rish I. An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier. In: IJCAI 2001 workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence. vol. 3; 2001. p. 41–46.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maier, O., Schröder, C., Forkert, N. D., Martinetz, T., & Handels, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Maier, Oskar
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-12-16
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
e0145118
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2217077692
Cited by
150
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6
FWCI
11.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Keywords
ischemic stroke, lesion segmentation, subacute stroke, FLAIR, convolutional neural networks, random forest, generalized linear models, interobserver agreement, lesion volume
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain Ischemia, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Trauma Severity Indices, Stroke

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