ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Sec. Medicine and Public Health
Differences Between MR Brain Region Segmentation Methods: Impact on Single-Subject Analysis
- 1Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine and Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- 2Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- 3Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- 4Philips Research Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
- 5School of Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
- 6Biomedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- 7Quantitative Imaging Group, Department of Imaging Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
For the segmentation of magnetic resonance brain images into anatomical regions, numerous fully automated methods have been proposed and compared to reference segmentations obtained manually. However, systematic differences might exist between the resulting segmentations, depending on the segmentation method and underlying brain atlas. This potentially results in sensitivity differences to disease and can further complicate the comparison of individual patients to normative data. In this study, we aim to answer two research questions: 1) to what extent are methods interchangeable, as long as the same method is being used for computing normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? and 2) can different methods be used for computing normative volume distributions and assessing patient-specific volumes? To answer these questions, we compared volumes of six brain regions calculated by five state-of-the-art segmentation methods: Erasmus MC (EMC), FreeSurfer (FS), geodesic information flows (GIF), multi-atlas label propagation with expectation–maximization (MALP-EM), and model-based brain segmentation (MBS). We applied the methods on 988 non-demented (ND) subjects and computed the correlation (PCC-v) and absolute agreement (ICC-v) on the volumes. For most regions, the PCC-v was good (
Quantitative imaging biomarkers are biological features that can be measured using medical images. They are of interest for diagnosis when changes in these features are due to disease. In the case of traumatic brain injury or neurodegenerative disease, typical valuable quantitative imaging biomarkers are brain region volumes (Zagorchev et al., 2015; Ledig et al., 2015; Scheltens et al., 2002). A well-known example is the volume of the hippocampus. A relatively low volume may indicate the presence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)’ (Convit et al., 1997; Jack et al., 1999; den Heijer et al., 2006). To determine if a patient deviates significantly, one can compare it to the so-called normative data (Brewer, 2009; Ziegler et al., 2014; Marquand et al., 2016). Normative data are acquired in a reference population, and they are used as baseline distribution for a measurement, against which an individual measurement can be compared. Normative data may incorporate covariates such as age or gender, when the distribution is expected to vary significantly as a function of these variables. Well-known examples are head-circumference-for-age, height-for-age, weight-for-age, and weight-for-height norms, provided by the WHO (de Onis et al., 2006), for detecting abnormal growth in children. The dependency on age is also the case for volumetric magnetic resonance (MR) brain images. Brewer (2009) proposed using quantile curves as a function of age as normative data for volumetric MR measurements.
Volumetric MR measurements are acquired by segmenting the brain into its different tissue types and regions of interest. The manual segmentation of a brain image is a time-consuming task, which has to be performed by an expert and is therefore too expensive and impractical for a clinical setting (Brewer (2009)). To automatically obtain brain region volumes from MRI brain data, numerous fully automated brain segmentation methods have been proposed in the literature. Each method relies on different techniques to segment either the full brain or a specific region. We can subdivide the methods that are based on prior probability maps (Fischl et al., 2002), statistical shape and appearance models (Babalola et al., 2008a; Patenaude et al., 2011; Wenzel et al., 2018), multi-atlas registration and labeling (Bron et al., 2014; Cardoso et al., 2015; Ledig et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wolz et al., 2010; van der Lijn et al., 2008), deep learning approaches (Bao and Chung, 2018; Shakeri et al., 2016; de Brébisson and Montana, 2015), and other (Hammers et al., 2009; Corso et al., 2007; Morra et al., 2008; Tue et al., 2008). Each method aims to segment the brain as accurately as possible where manual segmentation serves as the gold standard. Various comparison studies have been performed with regard to automated brain segmentation methods. Grimm et al. (2015) assessed the differences in amygdalar and hippocampal volume resulting from Freesurfer (Fischl et al., 2002), VBM8 (VBM1), and manual segmentation. They concluded that volumes computed with VBM8 and Freesurfer V5.0 were comparable, and systematic and proportional differences were mainly due to different definitions of anatomic boundaries. They concluded that large differences can still exist even with high correlation coefficients. Morey et al. (2009) also compared amygdalar and hippocampal volumes but using methods such as FSL/FIRST 4.0.12, Freesurfer 4.0.5 (Fischl et al., 2002), and manual segmentation. They concluded that for the hippocampus, Freesurfer was more similar to manual segmentation in terms of volume difference, overlap, and correlation. For the amygdala, FIRST represented the shape more accurately than Freesurfer. Babalola et al. (2008b) compared four different state-of-the-art algorithms for automatic segmentation of subcortical structures in MR brain images and evaluated spatial overlap, distance, and volumetric measures: classifier fusion and labeling (Aljabar et al., 2007), profile active appearance models (Babalola et al., 2007), Bayesian appearance models (Patenaude et al., 2011), and expectation–maximization–based segmentation using a dynamic brain atlas (Murgasova et al., 2006). They concluded that all four methods perform on par with recently published methods. One of their evaluating methods (Aljabar et al., 2007) performed significantly better than the other three methods according to their evaluation. Perlaki et al. (2017) compared the segmentation accuracy of the caudate nucleus and putamen between FSL/FIRST (version FSL’s build: 507) and Freesurfer (versions 4.5 and 5.3) by studying the Dice coefficient, and absolute and relative volume difference. They also measured consistency and absolute agreement. They concluded that for caudate segmentation, FIRST and Freesurfer 4.5 and 5.3 performed similarly, but for putaminal segmentation, FIRST was superior to Freesurfer 5.3.
The impact, however, of using different methods on the analyses of individual patients within a normative modeling framework is still unknown. This is relevant when volumetric MR data are used to generate normative distributions for both research and clinical use. In this study, we therefore aim to answer two research questions: 1) to what extent are methods interchangeable, as long as the same method is being used for deriving normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? and 2) can different methods be used for deriving normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? To answer these questions, we evaluated five state-of-the-art segmentation methods (Bron et al., 2014; Wenzel et al., 2018; Cardoso et al., 2015; Ledig et al., 2015; Fischl et al., 2002; Ikram et al., 2015).
2 Material and Methods
To derive the normative distributions as a function of age, we applied the brain region segmentation methods to a subset of the population-based Rotterdam Scan Study, a prospective longitudinal study among community-dwelling subjects aged 45 years and older (Ikram et al., 2015). This subset is uniformly distributed over age and consists of 988 T1w MR brain images from non-demented (ND) (425 male, age = 68.1 ± 13.0 years). The total sample size of the Rotterdam Scan Study is larger: as of July 2015, a total of 12,174 brain MR scans have been obtained on the research scanner in over 5,800 individuals (Ikram et al., 2015). The 988 subjects form a subset with uniform age distribution (433 male, age = 68.3 ± 13.0 (mean ± std)). We adopted this dataset from Huizinga et al. (2018). All brain images were acquired on a single 1.5T MRI system (GE Healthcare, US). The T1w imaging protocol was a 3-dimensional fast radiofrequency spoiled gradient recalled acquisition with an inversion recovery pre-pulse sequence (Ikram et al., 2015). The images were reconstructed to a voxel size of
In addition, we used the brain images of 42 (25 male, age = 81.9 ± 4.9 years) patients with AD at the time of the MRI scan from the same imaging study. Different MR acquisition protocols may lead to different image contrasts, and since most automated methods are—partly or entirely—driven by the contrast in the image; this may influence the segmentation results. To rule out possible differences of the segmentation due to the acquisition protocol, the methods were applied to the same images, all acquired with the same acquisition protocol (Ikram et al. (2015)).
2.2 Brain Segmentation Methods
We applied five previously proposed brain segmentation methods to the imaging data. The following five segmentation methods, explained in detail later, were evaluated:
1. Multi-atlas registration combined with tissue segmentation for cortical regions, developed at Erasmus MC (EMC), the Netherlands;
2. Freesurfer 5.1 (FS), developed at the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, United States of America;
3. Geodesic information flows (GIF), developed at University College London, United Kingdom;
4. Multi-atlas label propagation with expectation–maximization–based refinement (MALP-EM), developed at Imperial College London, United Kingdom; and
5. Model-based brain segmentation (MBS), developed at Philips Research Hamburg, Germany.
The regions segmented by each method are shown in Table 1. Later, a short description of each method is given.
This method combines multi-atlas registration and voxel-wise tissue segmentation for cortical regions, and hippocampus and amygdala. Probabilistic tissue segmentations are obtained on the image to be segmented using the unified tissue segmentation method (Ashburner and Friston, 2005) of SPM8 (Statistical Parametric Mapping, London, United Kingdom). Thirty labeled T1-weighted MR brain images are used as atlas images (Gousias et al., 2008; Hammers et al., 2003). The atlas images are registered to the subjects’ image using a rigid, affine, and non-rigid transformation model consecutively, and a mutual information-based similarity measure. The subjects’ images are corrected for inhomogeneities to improve registrations using the N3 algorithm (Tustison et al., 2010). Labels are fused using a majority voting algorithm (Heckemann et al., 2006). For the cortical regions, as well as hippocampus and amygdala, the label-map is combined with the tissue map such that the brain region volumes are determined on gray matter voxels only. For subcortical regions, the volumes are determined with a multi-atlas segmentation only as the probabilistic tissue segmentation for these regions is inaccurate. A more detailed description of this method can be found in Bron et al. (2014).
Freesurfer is widely used neuroimaging software developed by the Laboratory for Computational Neuroimaging at the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital. It has many applications, but in this work, we use the brain region segmentation method described in Fischl et al. (2002). The method defines the problem of segmentation using a Bayesian approach in which the probability is estimated of a segmentation, given the observed image. First, the image is transformed into the atlas space with an affine transformation. Manually labeled atlas images provide the prior spatial information of the brain regions. The final segmentation is estimated by combining this spatial information with the intensity distribution of each brain region in the individual image. (For more detailed information about this method, we refer the reader to Fischl et al. (2002).) In our experiments, we used FS version 5.1. The user is able to use his own atlas, however, we used the atlas provided by FS. This method is publicly available3.
This method is atlas-based and uses the geodesic path of a spatially variant graph to propagate the atlas labels (Cardoso et al., 2015). The atlas image database contains 130 T1-weighted MR brain images of cognitively normal participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study and 35 T1-weighted MR brain images from 30 young controls of the OASIS database (Marcus et al., 2007). The labeled images are made publicly available by Neuromorphometrics4 under academic subscription, as part of the MICCAI 2012 Grand Challenge on label fusion. First, each atlas image is registered to the individual image using a non-rigid transformation. A morphological distance of this image to each atlas image is estimated using the displacement field resulting from the image registration and the intensity similarity. The segmentation is estimated by fusing the labels of the morphologically closest atlas images. (For more details about this method, we refer the reader to Cardoso et al. (2015).) This method is publicly available5.
Like EMC, this method also combines multi-atlas registration and voxel-wise tissue segmentation. The atlas database of this method consists of 35 manually annotated T1-weighted MR brain images of 30 subjects of the OASIS database, which are also part of the atlas images of the GIF method (see Section 2.2.3). The atlas images of these 30 subjects are transformed to the space of the image that is to be segmented. These transformations are obtained via a non-rigid image registration approach (Heckemann et al., 2010). The subjects’ brains are extracted using the method proposed in Heckemann et al. (2015). The resulting 30 label images are fused, and a probabilistic map of each brain region is obtained. The labels are refined using expectation–maximization (EM) (Leemput et al., 1999), a brain tissue segmentation technique based on the image intensities. (More details can be found in Ledig et al. (2015).) In our experiments, we used MALP-EM version 1.2. This method is publicly available6.
The MBS method is based on the model-based brain segmentation presented in Wenzel et al. (2018). The model is shape-constrained and represented by a triangulated mesh of fixed topology. Shape variations are modeled by principal component analysis of manually annotated meshes of a set of training images, resulting in a point distribution model (PDM) with a mean mesh and shape modes (Cootes et al., 1992). To segment a new image, the mean mesh is placed within the image by a generalized Hough transform compensating global translation and translation. Subsequently, the mean mesh is adapted by a global affine transformation and then region-specific affine transformations by adding weighted shape modes. The global and local affine transform parameters and the mode weights are estimated using a boundary detection based, for example, on the local intensity gradient and a penalization component regularizing the mesh shape, including the PDM. Finally, in a deformable deformation step, triangles can adapt individually, leading to a close match of the model surface with the image boundaries.
A database of 96 3T scans following the MP-RAGE acquisition protocol, split over three vendors (GE, Siemens, and Philips) served as training data. These scans have been randomly selected from the ADNI study (
2.3 Regions of Interest
The set of brain regions in which each image is segmented differs per method. In this study, we focus on the following
FIGURE 1. T1w MR brain image from one of the subjects, with a colored overlay of the brain regions analyzed in this work, segmented with all methods. Slices in the axial direction are shown in the top row, slices in the saggital direction are shown in the middle row, and slices in the coronal direction are shown in the bottom row. The legend on the right side shows the regions and their corresponding colors in the overlay. Note that only for this visualization, the segmentations were registered to the MNI space; some differences might be due to imperfections of this registration.
2.4 Outlier Detection
Segmentation errors may occur due to bad image quality, pathology, or other method-related problems. These errors could lead to outliers in the volume data and may influence the statistics excessively. We therefore remove them from the volume data prior to the statistical analyses.
The segmentations of the ND subjects were not visually inspected as this would be too time-consuming. Method failures, that is, when the software pipeline did not result in a segmentation for the image, were excluded. On the remaining images, outliers were defined as having an absolute z-score higher than 5.0, derived with the population mean and standard deviation. Note that a z-score
2.5 Statistical Analyses
In the analyses, two scenarios are considered: 1) both the normative volume distribution and the patient-specific volumes are calculated by the same method, and 2) the normative volume distribution and the patient-specific volumes are calculated by different methods. The requirements for two methods to yield comparable results under scenario 1) are given as follows:
i) a high correlation on the absolute volumes, measured with the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) and referred to as PCC-v;
ii) a high absolute agreement on the patient’s distances relative to the normative distribution, that is, a high absolute agreement on the patients’ z-scores, measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and referred to as ICC-z.
The requirements for two methods to yield comparable results under scenario 2) are given as follows:
i) a high absolute agreement on the absolute volumes, measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and referred to as ICC-v;
ii) a high absolute agreement on the patients’ z-scores, measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and referred to as ICC-z.
For scenario 2), requirement i naturally results in requirement ii. The requirements for scenario 2) are stricter than those for scenario 1). If in scenario 1), an offset or scaling is present in the volumes of different methods, the resulting patient’s z-score will be the same because the same method is used for comparing the patient to the normative distribution. However in scenario 2), absolute agreement on the volumes is necessary, that is, no offset or scaling is allowed for comparing the patient to the normative distribution as an offset or scaling will affect the patient’s z-score. The next sections describe how the normative distribution was established, how the correlation and absolute agreement are measured, and, in the case of scenario 1), how the diagnostic value of the z-scores was assessed.
2.5.1 Normative Distribution Fitting
We fit an age-dependent normative distribution with the previously proposed LMS method (Cole and Green (1991)). This method assumes that the data are standard and normally distributed after applying the Yeo–Johnson transformation (Yeo and Johnson (2000)). The method estimates the
2.5.2 Correlation and Absolute Agreement
To verify if scenario 1) is applicable, we first measure the correlation of the volumes calculated by the methods, with the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC). We refer to these correlations as PCC-v. This coefficient is invariant for an offset and scaling of the data. To verify if scenario 2) is applicable, we compute the absolute agreement on the volumes, which was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The type of ICC to be chosen depends on the problem at hand. McGraw and Wong (1996) give an overview of the possible ICCs. For the presented experiments, ICC(A,1) is the appropriate absolute agreement measure (McGraw and Wong, 1996). Let X be an
We report all possible pairwise method combinations of PCC-v and ICC-v for
2.5.3 Absolute Z-Score Agreement
To further assess the applicability of scenario 1), we also computed the absolute agreement on the AD patient z-scores with ICC(A,1). We indicated these values with ICC-z. We present ICC-z on AD subjects with PCC-v for ND subjects (see Section 2.5.2) in the same table, to facilitate their comparison.
To estimate how well the AD patient z-scores discriminate between normative volumes and patient-specific volumes in scenario 1), we determine the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the z-score. The z-score was computed, as described in Section 2.5.1. The expected z-scores for the AD patients are <0, since we expect their brain structure volume to be lower than normal. We therefore define the AUC as the probability that a randomly chosen ND subject will have a higher z-score than a randomly chosen AD patient. The higher the AUC, the better will be the discrimination between AD patients and ND subjects. Since not every region is a known discriminative biomarker for AD, it is not necessarily expected that the AUC is high for each region. The hippocampus and amygdala are known to be discriminative biomarkers for AD, so for these regions, a high AUC is expected. For the computation of the AUC, only ND subjects within the age range of the AD patients, [71, 91] years, were included. A 95% confidence interval was computed by bootstrapping the z-scores 1,000 times.
We used the following rating scale for PCC-v, ICC-v, and ICC-z, adopted from the rules of thumb in Mukaka (2012):
3.1 Outlier Detection
Method FS failed for nine ND subjects, either by not finishing the segmentation pipeline or by giving a zero volume output for some of the analyzed brain regions. Visual inspection of the MRI scans of these subjects did not show pathology or severe artifacts that would clearly explain failure. The method EMC failed for one ND subject, which was due to the failure of the brain extraction tool (Smith (2002)), which is used at the beginning of the pipeline. The remainder of the methods provided a segmentation for all images. The number of outliers per region and method on the remaining 978 subjects is reported in Table 2 Two T1w images of AD patients were excluded due to large scanning or motion artifacts. The number of failed segmentations per region and method in the remaining 40 images is shown in Table 3. In one image, there was a large lesion in the frontal lobe, affecting the segmentation of the caudate nucleus and accumbens of all methods. In one other image, the method MBS failed to segment the putamen and globus pallidus correctly.
TABLE 2. Number of outliers in the ND subjects per method for each brain region. The outliers were defined as having an absolute z-score
TABLE 3. Number of rejected segmentations in the AD subjects per method for each brain region, determined by visual inspection. The two subjects that failed in the postprocessing were not included. As the outliers of the methods may overlap, the last column of the tables indicates the number of subjects included in the statistical analysis.
3.2 Volume Distributions
Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation of the volumes of the ND subjects for each method and region. We performed a one-way ANOVA test, which showed that the p-values for each brain structure is
Figure 2 shows the normative brain structure volume distribution fitted on 978 ND subjects, visualized in iso-z-score lines, for each method and brain structure. The red scatters show the volumes of the 40 AD patients, segmented with the same method as the normative distribution (scenario 1).
FIGURE 2. Normative brain structure volume distribution fitted on 978 ND subjects, visualized in iso-z-score lines from −3 to 3. All volumes are given in mm3 as a function of age [y]. The columns show volumes of each method, and the rows show the volumes per brain structure. The light gray scatters show the volumes of the ND subjects, and the red scatters show the volumes of the 40 AD patients, segmented with the same method as the normative distribution (scenario 1). The distribution was corrected for gender and height and is shown here for males of height 170 cm. EMC is the method Erasmus MC by Bron et al. (2014), FS is the method FreeSurfer by Fischl et al. (2002), GIF is the method geodesic information flows by Cardoso et al. (2015), MALP-EM is the method multi-atlas label propagation with expectation–maximization–based refinement by Ledig et al. (2015), and MBS is the method model-based segmentation by Wenzel et al. (2018). The caudate nucleus and accumbens was shortened to caudate n & a for visualization purposes.
3.3 Correlation and Absolute Agreement
Table 5 present PCC-v and ICC-v for each pairwise combination of the five methods. For most regions, PCC-v was good (
3.4 Absolute Z-Score Agreement
Table 6 shows ICC-z in the lower left triangle. In the upper-right triangle, PCC-v of the ND subjects is showed again, for easy comparison. ICC-z was good to excellent for regions thalamus (
TABLE 6. PCC-v of the ND volumes (upper-right triangle) and ICC-z of AD volume z-scores (lower-left triangle). The ICC-z is computed according to scenario 1.
Table 7 shows the AUC for each method and brain region. The highest AUC was achieved for the hippocampus (on average 0.79) and amygdala (on average 0.78), demonstrating their involvement in AD. For the thalamus and putamen, the AUC was
TABLE 7. AUC (95% confidence interval) for all regions, where the volumes of the normative distribution and the AD patients were generated by the same method (scenario 1).
3.6 Computational Efficiency
All methods were executed on a Linux Sun Grid Engine (SGE) computing cluster with eight computing nodes, each having multiple cores. All methods, except FS, provide an option for using multiple cores. This is especially efficient for methods that use multi-atlas registration, where the registrations of the subjects in the atlas database can run in parallel. In practice, the method GIF had the longest computation time, despite the usage of multiple cores. This was mainly due to the non-rigid image registrations of the 165 images in the atlas database. The method MBS was most efficient, needing only a few minutes to segment all 56 regions in a brain image on a single core. Except for MALP-EM, needing 33 GB of RAM per brain image, the memory usage of the methods was modest (≤8 GB) for the hardware in modern computers.
We evaluated the correlation and absolute agreement on regional volumes computed with different automated brain segmentation methods, and the impact of the volume differences between these methods on single-subject analysis in a normative modeling framework. We evaluated two scenarios: 1) The normative volume distributions and the patient-specific volumes were calculated by the same method, and 2) the normative volume distributions was calculated by a different method than the patient-specific volumes. To this end, we applied five state-of-the-art automated brain segmentation methods on the T1w MR brain images of 988 ND subjects, and 42 AD patients acquired with the same MR acquisition protocol.
The PCC-v showed that the volumes of all regions correlated well, indicating that volume differences between methods in ND subjects are mainly due to systematic differences, such as the usage of different atlases and region definitions. The ICC-v however was generally low, especially for the smaller regions, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and globus pallidus. The low ICC-v indicates that the methods cannot be interchanged in a normative modeling framework and scenario 2) is not applicable. This also becomes visually clear from Figure 2, when comparing the location of the red dots across graphs in a row.
The ICC-z, with which the agreement on the AD patient position relative to the normative distribution was measured in the case of scenario 1), was good to excellent for the thalamus and putamen, which also showed a good to excellent PCC-v. The other four regions showed lower ICC-z, indicating that different methods would result in different AD patient positions relative to the normative distribution, even when the normative distribution was computed using the same method as the patient data. A low PCC-v also seemed to result in a low ICC-z. A high PCC-v however does not necessarily result in a high ICC-z. This may indicate that brain morphology changes because AD affects each method differently.
The AUC, with which the z-score discrimination between the patient and normative volumes was measured in the case of scenario 1), was relatively high for the regions hippocampus and amygdala for all methods, demonstrating the involvement of these regions in AD. For the method GIF, the thalamus volume showed to be a better discriminator for AD than the hippocampus volume, which is unexpected, as this region is not known for its involvement in AD, and the other methods did not show such a high AUC for the thalamus. A possible explanation is that the method GIF is more affected than the other methods by the brain morphology change due to AD, such as larger ventricles.
Several limitations of this study can be highlighted. First, the segmented results rely strongly on the atlas that was used by the method. As was shown with the hippocampus, differences in volume may be largely explained by the atlas and how the region was defined. For this reason, operationalized and quantitated landmark differences to help a Delphi panel converge on a set of landmarks on the hippocampus and provided a set of manually segmented images for training models for automatic hippocampus segmentation. In this study however, we considered the atlas a part of the method, and we did not study specific atlas-related volume differences. Second, the number of AD patients was limited, which limits the generalization of the conclusions drawn from these results. In future studies, a higher number of AD patients should be used to generalize the study results. Third, we used images that were acquired on a single 1.5 T scanner with the same acquisition protocol. This allowed us to study the effect of differences in segmentation methods, while not considering the confounding effect of differences in acquisition protocols. Future research should investigate how differences in acquisition protocols influence the comparison of individual patients to normative data and to study the generalizability of our results in more heterogeneous datasets. Previously, tools have been developed to cope with volumetric differences due to scanning artifacts. The effectiveness of these tools can be tested using our research setup with normative data. Finally, we limited our study to five automatic segmentation methods. Many more have been previously proposed, and it remains an active area of research, particularly since the rise of deep learning techniques (Bao and Chung, 2018; Shakeri et al., 2016). These methods may achieve higher accuracy and precision, and therefore, the AUC of the AD patient z-scores may increase. Future studies should therefore also include deep learning–based approaches.
In this study, we aimed to answer two research questions: 1) to what extent are methods interchangeable, as long as the same method is being used for computing normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? and 2) can different methods be used for generating normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? Based on the absolute agreement results on the volume data of 988 non-demented subjects, we conclude that it is essential that the same method is used to generate normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes. For most regions, the correlation was good (
Data Availability Statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because of restrictions based on privacy regulations and informed consent of the participants. Requests should be directed toward the management team of the Rotterdam Study (firstname.lastname@example.org), which has a protocol for approving data requests.
The Rotterdam Study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC (registration number MEC 02.1015) and by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (Population Screening Act WBO, license number 1071272-159521-PG). The Rotterdam Study has been entered into the Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR; www.trialregister.nl) and into the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/) under shared catalogue number NTR6831. All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study and to have their information obtained from treating physicians.
All authors designed the study. WN, MV, and SK provided supervision. FW, EB, NT, and CL provided methodology and assisted in performing data analyses. WH collected and analyzed the results. All authors interpreted the results and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. WH had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007 - 2013, project VPH-DARE@IT (Grant Agreement No: 601055) and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, project EuroPOND (Grant Agreement No: 666992).
Conflict of Interest
Author WN is co-founder, scientific advisor, and shareholder of Quantib BV. Author FW is employed by Philips Research.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Aljabar, P., Heckemann, R., Hammers, A., Hajnal, J., and Rueckert, D. (2007). “Classifier Selection Strategies for Label Fusion Using Large Atlas Databases,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions - MICCAI 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 4791. Editors N. Ayache, S. Ourselin, and A. Maeder (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 523–531.
Babalola, K., Petrovic, V., Cootes, T., Taylor, C., Twining, C., Williams, T., et al. (2007). “Automated Segmentation of The Caudate Nuclei Using Active Appearance Models,” in 3D Segmentation In The Clinic: A Grand Challenge. MICCAI 2007 (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 57–64.
Babalola, K. O., Cootes, T. F., Twining, C. J., Petrovic, V., and Taylor, C. (2008a). “3d Brain Segmentation Using Active Appearance Models and Local Regressors,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions - MICCAI 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 5241. Editors D. Metaxas, L. Axel, G. Fichtinger, and G. Székely (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 401–408. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85988-8_48
Babalola, K. O., Patenaude, B., Aljabar, P., Schnabel, J., Kennedy, D., Crum, W., et al. (2008b). “Comparison and Evaluation of Segmentation Techniques for Subcortical Structures in Brain MRI,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions - MICCAI 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 5241. Editors D. Metaxas, L. Axel, G. Fichtinger, and G. Székely (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 409–416. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85988-8_49
Bao, S., and Chung, A. C. S. (2018). Multi-scale Structured CNN with Label Consistency for Brain MR Image Segmentation. Computer Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. Imaging Visualization 6, 113–117. doi:10.1080/21681163.2016.1182072
Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Morency, F. C., Collins, D. L., Nishikawa, M., Ganzola, R., et al. (2015a). Training Labels for Hippocampal Segmentation Based on the EADC-ADNI Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol. Alzheimers Dement. 11 (2), 175–183.
Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Ganzola, R., Robitaille, N., Redolfi, A., Duchesne, S., et al. (2015b). Operationalizing Protocol Differences for EADC-ADNI Manual Hippocampal Segmentation. Alzheimers Dement. 2 (11), 184–194.
Bron, E. E., Steketee, R. M. E., Houston, G. C., Oliver, R. A., Achterberg, H. C., Loog, M., et al. (2014). Diagnostic Classification of Arterial Spin Labeling and Structural MRI in Presenile Early Stage Dementia. Hum. Brain Mapp. 35, 4916–4931. doi:10.1002/hbm.22522
Cardoso, M. J., Modat, M., Wolz, R., Melbourne, A., Cash, D., Rueckert, D., et al. (2015). Geodesic Information Flows: Spatially-Variant Graphs and Their Application to Segmentation and Fusion. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34, 1976–1988. doi:10.1109/tmi.2015.2418298
Chupin, M., Hammers, A., Liu, R. S., Colliot, O., Burdett, J., Bardinet, E., et al. (2009). Automatic Segmentation of the hippocampus and the Amygdala Driven by Hybrid Constraints: Method and Validation. NeuroImage 46, 749–761. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.013
Convit, A., De Leon, M. J., Tarshish, C., De Santi, S., Tsui, W., Rusinek, H., et al. (1997). Specific Hippocampal Volume Reductions in Individuals at Risk for Alzheimer's Disease. Neurobiol. Aging 18, 131–138. doi:10.1016/s0197-4580(97)00001-8
Cootes, T. F., Taylor, C. J., Cooper, D. H., and Graham, J. (1992). “Training Models of Shape from Sets of Examples,” in BMVC92, September, 1992 (London, UK:Springer), 9–18. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3201-1_2
de Brébisson, A., and Montana, G. (2015). “Deep Neural Networks for Anatomical Brain Segmentation,” in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), June 7–12, 2015 (New York, USA: IEEE), 20–28.
de Onis, M., Onyango, A., Borghi, E., Siyam, A., and Pinol, A. (2006). WHO Child Growth Standards: Length/height-For-Age, Weight-For-Age, Weight-For-Length, Weight-Forheight and Body Mass index-for-age: Methods and Development. Geneva, Switzerland: Tech. rep., WHO Department of Health and Nutrition.
den Heijer, T., Geerlings, M. I., Hoebeek, F. E., Hofman, A., Koudstaal, P. J., and Breteler, M. M. B. (2006). Use of Hippocampal and Amygdalar Volumes on Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Predict Dementia in Cognitively Intact Elderly People. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 63, 57–62. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.1.57
Gousias, I. S., Rueckert, D., Heckemann, R. A., Dyet, L. E., Boardman, J. P., Edwards, A. D., et al. (2008). Automatic Segmentation of Brain MRIs of 2-Year-Olds into 83 Regions of Interest. Neuroimage 40, 672–684. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.034
Grimm, O., Pohlack, S., Cacciaglia, R., Winkelmann, T., Plichta, M. M., Demirakca, T., et al. (2015). Amygdalar and Hippocampal Volume: A Comparison between Manual Segmentation, Freesurfer and VBM. J. Neurosci. Methods 253, 254–261. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.05.024
Hammers, A., Allom, R., Koepp, M. J., Free, S. L., Myers, R., Lemieux, L., et al. (2003). Three-dimensional Maximum Probability Atlas of the Human Brain, with Particular Reference to the Temporal Lobe. Hum. Brain Mapp. 19, 224–247. doi:10.1002/hbm.10123
Heckemann, R. A., Hajnal, J. V., Aljabar, P., Rueckert, D., and Hammers, A. (2006). Automatic Anatomical Brain MRI Segmentation Combining Label Propagation and Decision Fusion. NeuroImage 33, 115–126. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.061
Heckemann, R. A., Keihaninejad, S., Aljabar, P., Rueckert, D., Hajnal, J. V., Hammers, A., et al. (2010). Improving Intersubject Image Registration Using Tissue-Class Information Benefits Robustness and Accuracy of Multi-Atlas Based Anatomical Segmentation. NeuroImage 51, 221–227. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.072
Heckemann, R. A., Ledig, C., Gray, K. R., Aljabar, P., Rueckert, D., Hajnal, J. V., et al. (2015). Brain Extraction Using Label Propagation and Group Agreement: Pincram. PLoS One 10, e0129211. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129211
Huizinga, W., Poot, D. H. J., Vernooij, M. W., Roshchupkin, G. V., Bron, E. E., Ikram, M. A., et al. (2018). A Spatio-Temporal Reference Model of the Aging Brain. NeuroImage 169, 11–22. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.040
Ikram, M. A., van der Lugt, A., Niessen, W. J., Koudstaal, P. J., Krestin, G. P., Hofman, A., et al. (2015). The Rotterdam Scan Study: Design Update 2016 and Main Findings. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 30, 1299–1315. doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0105-7
Jack, C. R., Petersen, R. C., Xu, Y. C., O’Brien, P. C., Smith, G. E., Ivnik, R. J., et al. (1999). Prediction of Ad with Mri-Based Hippocampal Volume in Mild Cognitive Impairment. Neurology 52, 1397. doi:10.1212/wnl.52.7.1397
Ledig, C., Heckemann, R. A., Hammers, A., Lopez, J. C., Newcombe, V. F. J., Makropoulos, A., et al. (2015). Robust Whole-Brain Segmentation: Application to Traumatic Brain Injury. Med. Image Anal. 21, 40–58. doi:10.1016/j.media.2014.12.003
Marcus, D. S., Wang, T. H., Parker, J., Csernansky, J. G., Morris, J. C., and Buckner, R. L. (2007). Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS): Cross-Sectional MRI Data in Young, Middle Aged, Nondemented, and Demented Older Adults. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 1498–1507. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1498
Marquand, A. F., Rezek, I., Buitelaar, J., and Beckmann, C. F. (2016). Understanding Heterogeneity in Clinical Cohorts Using Normative Models: Beyond Case-Control Studies. Biol. Psychiatry 80, 552–561. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.12.023
Morey, R. A., Petty, C. M., Xu, Y., Pannu Hayes, J., Wagner, H. R., Lewis, D. V., et al. (2009). A Comparison of Automated Segmentation and Manual Tracing for Quantifying Hippocampal and Amygdala Volumes. NeuroImage 45, 855–866. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.033
Morra, J. H., Tu, Z., Apostolova, L. G., Green, A. E., Avedissian, C., Madsen, S. K., et al. (2008). Validation of a Fully Automated 3D Hippocampal Segmentation Method Using Subjects with Alzheimer's Disease Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Elderly Controls. NeuroImage 43, 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.003
Murgasova, M., Dyet, L., Edwards, D., Rutherford, M., Hajnal, J. V., and Rueckert, D. (2006). “Segmentation of Brain MRI in Young Children,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 4190. Editors R. Larsen, M. Nielsen, and J. Sporring (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer). doi:10.1007/11866565_84
Murphy, S., Mohr, B., Fushimi, Y., Yamagata, H., and Poole, I. (2014). “Fast, Simple, Accurate Multi-Atlas Segmentation of the Brain,” in Biomedical Image Registration. WBIR 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8545. Editors S. Ourselin, and M. Modat (Cham: Springer), 1–10. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08554-8_1
Patenaude, B., Smith, S. M., Kennedy, D. N., and Jenkinson, M. (2011). A Bayesian Model of Shape and Appearance for Subcortical Brain Segmentation. NeuroImage 56, 907–922. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.046
Perlaki, G., Horvath, R., Nagy, S. A., Bogner,.Doczi, P. T., Doczi, T., Janszky, J., et al. (2017). Comparison of Accuracy between FSL's FIRST and Freesurfer for Caudate Nucleus and Putamen Segmentation. Sci. Rep. 7, 2418. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02584-5
Petersen, R. C., Aisen, P. S., Beckett, L. A., Donohue, M. C., Gamst, A. C., and Harvey, D. J. (2010). Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI): Clinical Characterization. NeuroI. 3 (74), 201–209.
Scheltens, P., Fox, N., Barkhof, F., and De Carli, C. (2002). Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Practical Assessment of Dementia: beyond Exclusion. Lancet Neurol. 1, 13–21. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(02)00002-9
Shakeri, M., Tsogkas, S., Ferrante, E., Lippe, S., Kadoury, S., Paragios, N., et al. (2016). “Sub-cortical Brain Structure Segmentation Using F-CNN’s,” in 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), April 9–16, 2016 (New York, USA: IEEE), 269–272.
Tu, Z., Narr, K. L., Dollar, P., Dinov, I., Thompson, P. M., and Toga, A. W. (2008). Brain Anatomical Structure Segmentation by Hybrid Discriminative/generative Models. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 27, 495–508. doi:10.1109/TMI.2007.908121
Tustison, N. J., Avants, B. B., Cook, P. A., Yuanjie Zheng, Y., Egan, A., Yushkevich, P. A., et al. (2010). N4ITK: Improved N3 Bias Correction. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29, 1310–1320. doi:10.1109/tmi.2010.2046908
van der Lijn, F., den Heijer, T., Breteler, M. M. B., and Niessen, W. J. (2008). Hippocampus Segmentation in MR Images Using Atlas Registration, Voxel Classification, and Graph Cuts. NeuroImage 43, 708–720. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.058
Wang, J., Vachet, C., Rumple, A., Gouttard, S., Ouziel, C., Perrot, E., et al. (2014). Multi-atlas Segmentation of Subcortical Brain Structures via the AutoSeg Software Pipeline. Front. Neuroinform. 8, 7. doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00007
Wenzel, F., Meyer, C., Stehle, T., Peters, J., Siemonsen, S., Thaler, C., et al. (2018). Rapid Fully Automatic Segmentation of Subcortical Brain Structures by Shape-Constrained Surface Adaptation. Med. Image Anal. 46, 146–161. doi:10.1016/j.media.2018.03.001
Zagorchev, L., Meyer, C., Stehle, T., Wenzel, F., Young, S., Peters, J., et al. (2015). Differences in Regional Brain Volumes Two Months and One Year after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J. Neurotrauma 33, 29–34. doi:10.1089/neu.2014.3831
Ziegler, G., Ridgway, G. R., Dahnke, R., and Gaser, C.for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (2014). Individualized Gaussian Process-Based Prediction and Detection of Local and Global gray Matter Abnormalities in Elderly Subjects. NeuroImage 97, 333–348. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.018
Keywords: brain region segmentation, subcortical, comparison study, normative modeling, magnetic resonance imaging
Citation: Huizinga W, Poot DHJ, Vinke EJ, Wenzel F, Bron EE, Toussaint N, Ledig C, Vrooman H, Ikram MA, Niessen WJ, Vernooij MW and Klein S (2021) Differences Between MR Brain Region Segmentation Methods: Impact on Single-Subject Analysis. Front. Big Data 4:577164. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2021.577164
Received: 28 June 2020; Accepted: 21 May 2021;
Published: 30 July 2021.
Edited by:Holger Fröhlich, University of Bonn, Germany
Reviewed by:Alex Pagnozzi, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia
Alberto Redolfi, Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli (IRCCS), Italy
Copyright © 2021 Huizinga, Poot, Vinke, Wenzel, Bron, Toussaint, Ledig, Vrooman, Ikram, Niessen, Vernooij and Klein. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: W. Huizinga, email@example.com