Multi-atlas segmentation with joint label fusion and corrective learning—an open source implementation
Open accessAbstract
Label fusion based multi-atlas segmentation has proven to be one of the most competitive techniques for medical image segmentation. This technique transfers segmentations from expert-labeled images, called atlases, to a novel image using deformable image registration. Errors produced by label transfer are further reduced by label fusion that combines the results produced by all atlases into a consensus solution. Among the proposed label fusion strategies, weighted voting with spatially varying weight distributions derived from atlas-target intensity similarity is a simple and highly effective label fusion technique. However, one limitation of most weighted voting methods is that the weights are computed independently for each atlas, without taking into account the fact that different atlases may produce similar label errors. To address this problem, we recently developed the joint label fusion technique and the corrective learning technique, which won the first place of the 2012 MICCAI Multi-Atlas Labeling Challenge and was one of the top performers in 2013 MICCAI Segmentation: Algorithms, Theory and Applications (SATA) challenge. To make our techniques more accessible to the scientific research community, we describe an Insight-Toolkit based open source implementation of our label fusion methods. Our implementation extends our methods to work with multi-modality imaging data and is more suitable for segmentation problems with multiple labels. We demonstrate the usage of our tools through applying them to the 2012 MICCAI Multi-Atlas Labeling Challenge brain image dataset and the 2013 SATA challenge canine leg image dataset. We report the best results on these two datasets so far.
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
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.
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?
Multi-atlas segmentation has been applied successfully to many challenging segmentation problems such as identifying hippocampal subfields in MRI, the spinal cord, and the mitral valve in preoperative 3D echocardiography.
“This approach has been applied successfully to many challenging segmentation problems 15 such as identifying hippocampal subfields in magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the brain, 17,18 the spinal cord, 19 and the mitral valve in preoperative 3D echocardiography. 20”
From Minimally interactive placenta segmentation from three-dimensional ultrasound images (2020) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 218
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Asman A. Akhondi-Asl A. Wang H. Tustison N. Avants B. Warfield S. K. (2013). Miccai 2013 segmentation algorithms, theory and applications (SATA) challenge results summary, in MICCAI 2013 Challenge Workshop on Segmentation: Algorithms, Theory and Applications. (Springer).
- Avants B. B. Tustison N. J. Wang H. Asman A. J. Landman B. A (2013). Standardized registration methods for the sata challenge datasets, in MICCAI Challenge Workshop on Segmentation: Algorithms, Theory and Applications (SATA) (Springer).
- Landman B. Warfield S. (eds.). (2012). MICCAI 2012 Workshop on Multi-Atlas Labeling. Nice: CreateSpace
- Authors
- Wang, H., & Yushkevich, P. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Hongzhi
- Venue
- Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 27-27
- ISSN
- 1662-5196 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3837555
- OpenAlex
- W2170500377
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 8.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Neuroinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG037376)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB014346)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- multi-atlas segmentation, label fusion, weighted voting, deformable image registration, medical image segmentation, Insight Toolkit, open source software, brain segmentation, multi-modality imaging
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