Cited by 218Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Imaging and Analysis

Multi-atlas segmentation with joint label fusion and corrective learning—an open source implementation

Open access
Wang, Hongzhi, Yushkevich, Paul A.·2013·Frontiers in Neuroinformatics

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fninf.2013.00027

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.

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?

  • 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”

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

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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
Published
2013
Volume
7
Pages
27-27
ISSN
1662-5196 (ISSN-L)
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
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