Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset
Do you wish to request the book?
Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset
2019
Overview
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are a common manifestation of cerebral small vessel disease, that is increasingly studied with large, pooled multicenter datasets. This data pooling increases statistical power, but poses challenges for automated WMH segmentation. Although there is extensive literature on the evaluation of automated WMH segmentation methods, such evaluations in a multicenter setting are lacking. We performed WMH segmentations in sixty patients scanned on six different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners (10 patients per scanner) using five freely available and fully-automated WMH segmentation methods (Cascade, kNN-TTP, Lesion-TOADS, LST-LGA and LST-LPA). Different MRI scanner vendors and field strengths were included. We compared these automated WMH segmentations with manual WMH segmentations as a reference. Performance of each method both within and across scanners was assessed using spatial and volumetric correspondence with the reference segmentations by Dice’s similarity coefficient (DSC) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) respectively. We found the best performance, both within and across scanners, for kNN-TTP, followed by LST-LPA and LST-LGA, with worse performance for Lesion-TOADS and Cascade. Our findings can serve as a guide for choosing a method and also highlight the importance to further improve and evaluate consistency of methods in a multicenter setting.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group
Subject
