2 results
Now showing1 - 2 of 2
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: with files , BrainLossNet : a fast, accurate and robust method to estimate brain volume loss from longitudinal MRI(Springer, 2024-06-16); ; ; ; Purpose: MRI-derived brain volume loss (BVL) is widely used as neurodegeneration marker. SIENA is state-of-the-art for BVL measurement, but limited by long computation time. Here we propose “BrainLossNet”, a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based method for BVL-estimation. Methods: BrainLossNet uses CNN-based non-linear registration of baseline(BL)/follow-up(FU) 3D-T1w-MRI pairs. BVL is computed by non-linear registration of brain parenchyma masks segmented in the BL/FU scans. The BVL estimate is corrected for image distortions using the apparent volume change of the total intracranial volume. BrainLossNet was trained on 1525 BL/FU pairs from 83 scanners. Agreement between BrainLossNet and SIENA was assessed in 225 BL/FU pairs from 94 MS patients acquired with a single scanner and 268 BL/FU pairs from 52 scanners acquired for various indications. Robustness to short-term variability of 3D-T1w-MRI was compared in 354 BL/FU pairs from a single healthy men acquired in the same session without repositioning with 116 scanners (Frequently-Traveling-Human-Phantom dataset, FTHP). Results: Processing time of BrainLossNet was 2–3 min. The median [interquartile range] of the SIENA-BrainLossNet BVL difference was 0.10% [− 0.18%, 0.35%] in the MS dataset, 0.08% [− 0.14%, 0.28%] in the various indications dataset. The distribution of apparent BVL in the FTHP dataset was narrower with BrainLossNet (p = 0.036; 95th percentile: 0.20% vs 0.32%). Conclusion: BrainLossNet on average provides the same BVL estimates as SIENA, but it is significantly more robust, probably due to its built-in distortion correction. Processing time of 2–3 min makes BrainLossNet suitable for clinical routine. This can pave the way for widespread clinical use of BVL estimation from intra-scanner BL/FU pairs.Publicationtype: Journal Article8 11 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: with files , Fully automated longitudinal segmentation of new or enlarged multiple sclerosis lesions using 3D convolutional neural networks(Elsevier, 2020-09-24); ; ; ; The quantification of new or enlarged lesions from follow-up MRI scans is an important surrogate of clinical disease activity in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Not only is manual segmentation time consuming, but inter-rater variability is high. Currently, only a few fully automated methods are available. We address this gap in the field by employing a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) with encoder-decoder architecture for fully automatic longitudinal lesion segmentation. Input data consist of two fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) images (baseline and follow-up) per patient. Each image is entered into the encoder and the feature maps are concatenated and then fed into the decoder. The output is a 3D mask indicating new or enlarged lesions (compared to the baseline scan). The proposed method was trained on 1809 single point and 1444 longitudinal patient data sets and then validated on 185 independent longitudinal data sets from two different scanners. From the two validation data sets, manual segmentations were available from three experienced raters, respectively. The performance of the proposed method was compared to the open source Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (LST), which is a current state-of-art longitudinal lesion segmentation method. The mean lesion-wise inter-rater sensitivity was 62%, while the mean inter-rater number of false positive (FP) findings was 0.41 lesions per case. The two validated algorithms showed a mean sensitivity of 60% (CNN), 46% (LST) and a mean FP of 0.48 (CNN), 1.86 (LST) per case. Sensitivity and number of FP were not significantly different (p < 0.05) between the CNN and manual raters. New or enlarged lesions counted by the CNN algorithm appeared to be comparable with manual expert ratings. The proposed algorithm seems to outperform currently available approaches, particularly LST. The high inter-rater variability in case of manual segmentation indicates the complexity of identifying new or enlarged lesions. An automated CNN-based approach can quickly provide an independent and deterministic assessment of new or enlarged lesions from baseline to follow-up scans with acceptable reliability.Publicationtype: Journal ArticleScopus© Citations 36 136 330