Heinen, R;
Steenwijk, MD;
Barkhof, F;
Biesbroek, JM;
van der Flier, WM;
Kuijf, HJ;
Prins, ND;
... Vriens, E; + view all
(2019)
Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset.
Scientific Reports
, 9
, Article 16742. 10.1038/s41598-019-52966-0.
Preview |
Text
s41598-019-52966-0.pdf - Published Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
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.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41598-019-52966-0 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52966-0 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology > Brain Repair and Rehabilitation |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10087054 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
