Difference between revisions of "DBP2:UNC:Tissue Segmentation Evaluation"
(New page: Back to NA-MIC Internal Collaborations, UNC DBP 2 __NOTOC__ == Objective == We would like to evaluate the brain tissue segmentation using ...) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
A UNC dataset has been used for this study, one patient being scanned 10 times on the same scanner. | A UNC dataset has been used for this study, one patient being scanned 10 times on the same scanner. | ||
Two dual-channel segmentation trials were performed to compare the segmentation reliability using the two algorithms. | Two dual-channel segmentation trials were performed to compare the segmentation reliability using the two algorithms. | ||
| + | A single T1 image was registered to the template atlas and the rest of the T1 images were affinely registered and scaled to that original T1 image to minimize scanner-influenced differences. | ||
=== Results === | === Results === | ||
| Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
See results detailed on spreadsheet: | See results detailed on spreadsheet: | ||
| − | + | [[Image:UNC_DBP2_TissueSegmentation_VolumeAnalysis.xls|Volume Analysis]] | |
== Qualitative study on pediatric dataset == | == Qualitative study on pediatric dataset == | ||
Revision as of 21:20, 12 March 2008
Home < DBP2:UNC:Tissue Segmentation EvaluationBack to NA-MIC Internal Collaborations, UNC DBP 2
Objective
We would like to evaluate the brain tissue segmentation using two different algorithms: itkEMS and Slicer3 EMSegment.
- A reliability study was performed on adult dataset.
- A qualitative study was performed on pediatric dataset.
Reliability study on adult dataset
Method
A UNC dataset has been used for this study, one patient being scanned 10 times on the same scanner. Two dual-channel segmentation trials were performed to compare the segmentation reliability using the two algorithms. A single T1 image was registered to the template atlas and the rest of the T1 images were affinely registered and scaled to that original T1 image to minimize scanner-influenced differences.
Results
One case failed at the execution using EMSegment and has been removed.
The covariance was computed in each trial, not only for each tissue (White matter, grey matter and CSF), but also for the Intra Cranial Volume, sum of the three tissues.
- Covariance/Tissue WM GM CSF ICV - itkEMS 1.27% 0.99% 6.27% 0.88% - EMSegment 7.66% 3.15% 14.84% 1.51%
See results detailed on spreadsheet: Volume Analysis
