Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
STEPS: Similarity and Truth Estimation for Propagated Segmentations and its application to hippocampal segmentation and brain parcelation
Jorge Cardoso M, Leung K, Modat M, Keihaninejad S, Cash D, Barnes J, Fox NC, Ourselin S et al.. Medical image analysis, 2013-03-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Anatomical segmentation of structures of interest is critical to quantitative analysis in medical imaging. Several automated multi-atlas based segmentation propagation methods that utilise manual delineations from multiple templates appear promising. However, high levels of accuracy and reliability are needed for use in diagnosis or in clinical trials. We propose a new local ranking strategy for template selection based on the locally normalised cross correlation (LNCC) and an extension to the classical STAPLE algorithm by Warfield et al. (2004), which we refer to as STEPS for Similarity and Truth Estimation for Propagated Segmentations. It addresses the well-known problems of local vs. global image matching and the bias introduced in the performance estimation due to structure size. We assessed the method on hippocampal segmentation using a leave-one-out cross validation with optimised model parameters; STEPS achieved a mean Dice score of 0.925 when compared with manual segmentation. This was significantly better in terms of segmentation accuracy when compared to other state-of-the-art fusion techniques. Furthermore, due to the finer anatomical scale, STEPS also obtains more accurate segmentations even when using only a third of the templates, reducing the dependence on large template databases. Using a subset of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) scans from different MRI imaging systems and protocols, STEPS yielded similarly accurate segmentations (Dice=0.903). A cross-sectional and longitudinal hippocampal volumetric study was performed on the ADNI database. Mean±SD hippocampal volume (mm(3)) was 5195 ± 656 for controls; 4786 ± 781 for MCI; and 4427 ± 903 for Alzheimer's disease patients and hippocampal atrophy rates (%/year) of 1.09 ± 3.0, 2.74 ± 3.5 and 4.04 ± 3.6 respectively. Statistically significant (p<10(-3)) differences were found between disease groups for both hippocampal volume and volume change rates. Finally, STEPS was also applied in a multi-label segmentation propagation scenario using a leave-one-out cross validation, in order to parcellate 83 separate structures of the brain. Comparisons of STEPS with state-of-the-art multi-label fusion algorithms showed statistically significant segmentation accuracy improvements (p<10(-4)) in several key structures.
Key findings
- We assessed the method on hippocampal segmentation using a leave-one-out cross validation with optimised model parameters; STEPS achieved a mean Dice score of 0.925 when compared with manual segmentation.
- This was significantly better in terms of segmentation accuracy when compared to other state-of-the-art fusion techniques.
- Statistically significant (p<10(-3)) differences were found between disease groups for both hippocampal volume and volume change rates.
- Comparisons of STEPS with state-of-the-art multi-label fusion algorithms showed statistically significant segmentation accuracy improvements (p<10(-4)) in several key structures.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Medical image analysis) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23510558) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Jorge Cardoso, M., Leung, K., Modat, M., Keihaninejad, S., Cash, D., Barnes, J., et al. (2013). STEPS: Similarity and Truth Estimation for Propagated Segmentations and its application to hippocampal segmentation and brain parcelation. Medical image analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2013.02.006
Vancouver
Jorge Cardoso M, Leung K, Modat M, Keihaninejad S, Cash D, Barnes J, et al. STEPS: Similarity and Truth Estimation for Propagated Segmentations and its application to hippocampal segmentation and brain parcelation. Medical image analysis. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.media.2013.02.006. PMID: 23510558.
BibTeX
@article{jorgecardoso2013-23510558,
author = {Jorge Cardoso, M. and Leung, K. and Modat, M. and Keihaninejad, S. and Cash, D. and Barnes, J. and Fox, N. C. and Ourselin, S. and others},
title = {{STEPS: Similarity and Truth Estimation for Propagated Segmentations and its application to hippocampal segmentation and brain parcelation}},
journal = {Medical image analysis},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1016/j.media.2013.02.006},
pmid = {23510558},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2013.02.006}
}