Segmentation of Anatomical Structures: Frithjof Kruggel, M.D
Segmentation of Anatomical Structures: Frithjof Kruggel, M.D
Atlas-based segmentation I
Atlas-based approaches require an annotated reference atlas and an algorithm for (nonlinear)
registration of the individual dataset with the reference.
The following annotated volumes are available:
The ICBM Single Subject MRI Anatomical Template
(see:
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/ICBM/Downloads/Downloads ICBMtemplate.shtml).
This is a labeled dataset of a single subject in stereotaxic space.
The ICBM 452 T1 Atlas
(see: http://www.loni.ucla.edu/ICBM/Downloads/Downloads 452T1.shtml). This atlas
is an average of T1-weighted MRIs of normal young adult brains. It does not contain
annotations.
The LPBA40 Atlas
(see: http://www.loni.ucla.edu/Atlases/Atlas Detail.jsp?atlas id=12). This is a probabilistic atlas built from manual annotations of 54 structures in 40 datasets. This atlas
contains the per-voxel chance by which a specific structure is found at that location.
The Voxel-Man Atlas
(see: http://www.voxel-man.de/3d-navigator/brain and skull/) contains an annotated
brain from the Visible Human Project.
Refer to a closer explanation about the difference of Talairach coordinates and the different
reference brains to: http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/imaging/MniTalairach.
First Prev Next Last Go Back Full Screen Close Quit
Atlas example
Atlas-based segmentation II
Advantages and disadvantages of atlas-based segmentation:
Conceptually simple: segmentation is performed by registration with a
reference.
Relies on the correctness of the annotation and the quality of registration.
Improvements may be achieved if multiple atlases are used, and labels
are fused for a specific object.
Example-based atlases do not reflect the variance in the (healthy) population.
Probabilistic atlases contain per-voxel probabilities, and will thus lead
to an imprecise segmentation.
Due to the variability of the human brain, results are better for the core
structures (e.g., basal ganglia), and worse for the cortex.
Approaches are not stable in the presence of lesions.
For certain structures that are (currently) not discriminatable by MR
imaging (e.g., subthalamic nuclei) atlas-based registration is the only
method for localization.
Note that atlases and their use for brain segmentation will be discussed in
First Prev Next Last Go Back Full Screen Close Quit
Brain peeling I
After inhomogeneity correction, the image is segmented into three intensity
classes. Voxels of the third class are selected, and the largest connected
component is selected as a raw white matter segmentation.
Brain peeling II
Next, a raw surface of this segment is computed, and optimized to the
WM/GM interface using the intensity-corrected dataset. The BG/GM interface can be computed by expanding this interface. Finally, this surface
can be used to extract the brain from the imaging data.
Cortical thickness
The local distance between the WM/GM and BG/GM interfaces can be interpreted as the neocortical thickness. Values can be integrated over a surface
patch as the neocortical volume.
Neocortical parcellation
The neocortical surface can further be subdivided into sulci and gyri, and
basins are identified as substructures of individual sulci.
Note that the individual variability is retained in these results. The segmentation of individual structures is a topic in Seminars 2 and 4.
Segmentation approach
Approximation: the brain is a mirror-symmetric organ.
Lesions considered here are confined to a single hemisphere.
Tissue on the contralateral side is generally healthy.
Find compact areas with an intensity statistic that differs significantly
from the contralateral side.
Algorithm summary
The process chain consists of the following steps:
affine registration of T1- and T2-weighted MRI data,
comparison of the signal statistics in two subregions that are mirrorsymmetric w.r.t. the mid-sagittal plane,
thresholding of the statistical map and determination of connected components,
comparison of the component size with the size distribution of natural
asymmetries,
characterization of detected lesions.
Natural asymmetries are expected to be smaller than pathological lesions.
Lesion description
The detected lesion may further be characterized using an intensity- or
texture-based segmentation. Besides parameters such as size, position and
compactness the severity of tissue damage may be quantified by an index
and followed up in time-series evaluation.