Cargando…
Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset
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 lite...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6856351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31727919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52966-0 |
_version_ | 1783470561925529600 |
---|---|
author | Heinen, Rutger Steenwijk, Martijn D. Barkhof, Frederik Biesbroek, J. Matthijs van der Flier, Wiesje M. Kuijf, Hugo J. Prins, Niels D. Vrenken, Hugo Biessels, Geert Jan de Bresser, Jeroen |
author_facet | Heinen, Rutger Steenwijk, Martijn D. Barkhof, Frederik Biesbroek, J. Matthijs van der Flier, Wiesje M. Kuijf, Hugo J. Prins, Niels D. Vrenken, Hugo Biessels, Geert Jan de Bresser, Jeroen |
author_sort | Heinen, Rutger |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6856351 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68563512019-12-17 Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset Heinen, Rutger Steenwijk, Martijn D. Barkhof, Frederik Biesbroek, J. Matthijs van der Flier, Wiesje M. Kuijf, Hugo J. Prins, Niels D. Vrenken, Hugo Biessels, Geert Jan de Bresser, Jeroen Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6856351/ /pubmed/31727919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52966-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Heinen, Rutger Steenwijk, Martijn D. Barkhof, Frederik Biesbroek, J. Matthijs van der Flier, Wiesje M. Kuijf, Hugo J. Prins, Niels D. Vrenken, Hugo Biessels, Geert Jan de Bresser, Jeroen Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
title | Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
title_full | Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
title_fullStr | Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
title_short | Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
title_sort | performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6856351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31727919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52966-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heinenrutger performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT steenwijkmartijnd performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT barkhoffrederik performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT biesbroekjmatthijs performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT vanderflierwiesjem performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT kuijfhugoj performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT prinsnielsd performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT vrenkenhugo performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT biesselsgeertjan performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT debresserjeroen performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset AT performanceoffiveautomatedwhitematterhyperintensitysegmentationmethodsinamulticenterdataset |