Automated lesion segmentation with BIANCA: Impact of population-level features, classification algorithm and locally adaptive thresholding.
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aging
Brain Diseases
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Machine Learning
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Neuroimaging
/ methods
Pattern Recognition, Automated
/ methods
White Matter
/ diagnostic imaging
Lesion probability map
Lesion segmentation
Machine learning
Structural MRI
Thresholding
White matter hyperintensities
Journal
NeuroImage
ISSN: 1095-9572
Titre abrégé: Neuroimage
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9215515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 11 2019
15 11 2019
Historique:
received:
18
03
2019
revised:
19
06
2019
accepted:
24
07
2019
pubmed:
4
8
2019
medline:
15
9
2020
entrez:
4
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) or white matter lesions exhibit high variability in their characteristics both at population- and subject-level, making their detection a challenging task. Population-level factors such as age, vascular risk factors and neurodegenerative diseases affect lesion load and spatial distribution. At the individual level, WMH vary in contrast, amount and distribution in different white matter regions. In this work, we aimed to improve BIANCA, the FSL tool for WMH segmentation, in order to better deal with these sources of variability. We worked on two stages of BIANCA by improving the lesion probability map estimation (classification stage) and making the lesion probability map thresholding stage automated and adaptive to local lesion probabilities. Firstly, in order to take into account the effect of population-level factors, we included population-level lesion probabilities, modelled with respect to a parametric factor (e.g. age), in the classification stage. Secondly, we tested BIANCA performance when using four alternative classifiers commonly used in the literature with respect to K-nearest neighbour algorithm (currently used for lesion probability map estimation in BIANCA). Finally, we propose LOCally Adaptive Threshold Estimation (LOCATE), a supervised method for determining optimal local thresholds to apply to the estimated lesion probability map, as an alternative option to global thresholding (i.e. applying the same threshold to the entire lesion probability map). For these experiments we used data from a neurodegenerative cohort, a vascular cohort and the cohorts available publicly as a part of a segmentation challenge. We observed that including population-level parametric lesion probabilities with respect to age and using alternative machine learning techniques provided negligible improvement. However, LOCATE provided a substantial improvement in the lesion segmentation performance, when compared to the global thresholding. It allowed to detect more deep lesions and provided better segmentation of periventricular lesion boundaries, despite the differences in the lesion spatial distribution and load across datasets. We further validated LOCATE on a cohort of CADASIL (Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy) patients, a genetic form of cerebral small vessel disease, and healthy controls, showing that LOCATE adapts well to wide variations in lesion load and spatial distribution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31376518
pii: S1053-8119(19)30638-X
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116056
pmc: PMC6996003
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
116056Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 206330/Z/17/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Parkinson's UK
ID : J-0901
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L023784/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Biol Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 15;64(4):273-80
pubmed: 18471801
Neuroimage. 2011 Jul 15;57(2):378-90
pubmed: 21497655
Stroke. 2017 Jun;48(6):1539-1547
pubmed: 28487328
Neuroimage. 2008 Jun;41(2):335-45
pubmed: 18394928
BMJ. 2010 Jul 26;341:c3666
pubmed: 20660506
Brain. 2018 Nov 1;141(11):3193-3210
pubmed: 30346491
Neuroimage. 2004 May;22(1):144-54
pubmed: 15110004
Neuroradiology. 2017 Oct;59(10):951-962
pubmed: 28815362
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2018 Sep;38(9):1654-1663
pubmed: 28128022
Neurology. 2012 Sep 18;79(12):1215-22
pubmed: 22955138
Neuroimage. 2004 Mar;21(3):1037-44
pubmed: 15006671
Stroke. 2013 Nov;44(11):3063-70
pubmed: 24021688
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Aug;12(8):822-38
pubmed: 23867200
Biol Psychiatry. 2013 Sep 1;74(5):375-83
pubmed: 23726515
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Jul;8(7):643-53
pubmed: 19539236
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001 Jan;20(1):45-57
pubmed: 11293691
Neurology. 2019 Jul 16;93(3):e272-e282
pubmed: 31201296
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2010 Jul;34(5):404-13
pubmed: 20189353
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009 May;24(3):209-17
pubmed: 19617597
Med Image Anal. 2001 Jun;5(2):143-56
pubmed: 11516708
Hum Brain Mapp. 2002 Nov;17(3):143-55
pubmed: 12391568
Neuroimage. 2012 Apr 15;60(3):1597-607
pubmed: 22305990
Neuroimage. 2019 Jan 15;185:434-445
pubmed: 30359730
Neuroinformatics. 2018 Apr;16(2):269-281
pubmed: 29594711
Neurobiol Aging. 2015 Jun;36(6):2130-5
pubmed: 25842006
Neuroimage. 2014 Sep;98:324-35
pubmed: 24793830
Stroke. 2005 Jan;36(1):50-5
pubmed: 15576652
Lancet Neurol. 2010 Jul;9(7):689-701
pubmed: 20610345
Neuroimage. 2018 Apr 15;170:174-181
pubmed: 28315460
Front Neurol. 2018 Jul 10;9:526
pubmed: 30042721
Neurology. 2004 Nov 9;63(9):1699-701
pubmed: 15534259
Neuroimage. 2016 Nov 1;141:191-205
pubmed: 27402600
Neuroimage. 2009 May 1;45(4):1151-61
pubmed: 19344687
BMC Med. 2014 Nov 11;12:206
pubmed: 25385447
Neurology. 2006 May 23;66(10):1523-6
pubmed: 16717212
Lancet. 2004 Jun 12;363(9425):1925-33
pubmed: 15194251