Chapter title |
Accuracy assessment of global and local atrophy measurement techniques with realistic simulated longitudinal data.
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 95 |
Book title |
Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2007
|
Published in |
Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, January 2007
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-3-540-75759-7_95 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-3-54-075758-0, 978-3-54-075759-7
|
Authors |
Oscar Camara, Rachael I. Scahill, Julia A. Schnabel, William R. Crum, Gerard R. Ridgway, Derek L. G. Hill, Nick C. Fox, Camara, Oscar, Scahill, Rachael I., Schnabel, Julia A., Crum, William R., Ridgway, Gerard R., Hill, Derek L. G., Fox, Nick C. |
Abstract |
The main goal of this work was to assess the accuracy of several well-known methods which provide global (BSI and SIENA) or local (Jacobian integration) estimates of longitudinal atrophy in brain structures using Magnetic Resonance images. For that purpose, we have generated realistic simulated images which mimic the patterns of change obtained from a cohort of 19 real controls and 27 probable Alzheimer's disease patients. SIENA and BSI results correlate very well with gold standard data (BSI mean absolute error < 0.29%; SIENA < 0.44%). Jacobian integration was guided by both fluid and FFD-based registration techniques and resulting deformation fields and associated Jacobians were compared, region by region, with gold standard ones. The FFD registration technique provided more satisfactory results than the fluid one. Mean absolute error differences between volume changes given by the FFD-based technique and the gold standard were: sulcal CSF < 2.49%; lateral ventricles < 2.25%; brain < 0.36%; hippocampi < 1.42%. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
United States | 1 | 4% |
Germany | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 25 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 10 | 36% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
Professor | 2 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 14% |
Computer Science | 3 | 11% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
Engineering | 2 | 7% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 7 | 25% |