Katalog Plus
Bibliothek der Frankfurt UAS
Bald neuer Katalog: sichern Sie sich schon vorab Ihre persönlichen Merklisten im Nutzerkonto: Anleitung.
Dieses Ergebnis aus BASE kann Gästen nicht angezeigt werden.  Login für vollen Zugriff.

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
Authors: Heinen, R; Steenwijk, MD; Barkhof, F; Biesbroek, JM; van der Flier, WM; Kuijf, HJ; Prins, ND; Vrenken, H; Biessels, GJ; de Bresser, J; van den Berg, E; Boomsma, JMF; Exalto, LG; Ferro, DA; Frijns, CJM; Groeneveld, ON; van Kalsbeek, NM; Verwer, JH; Emmelot-Vonk, ME; Koek, HL; Benedictus, MR; Bremer, J; Leeuwis, AE; Leijenaar, J; Scheltens, P; Tijms, BM; Wattjes, MP; Teunissen, CE; Koene, T; Weinstein, HC; Hamaker, M; Faaij, R; Pleizier, M; Prins, M; Vriens, E
Source: Scientific Reports , 9 , Article 16742. (2019)
Publisher Information: NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
Publication Year: 2019
Collection: University College London: UCL Discovery
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.
Document Type: article in journal/newspaper
File Description: text
Language: English
Relation: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10087054/
Availability: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10087054/1/s41598-019-52966-0.pdf; https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10087054/
Rights: open
Accession Number: edsbas.8960F48F
Database: BASE