Evaluating accuracy of striatal, pallidal, and thalamic segmentation methods: Comparing automated approaches to manual delineation

Accurate automated quantification of subcortical structures is a greatly pursued endeavour in neuroimaging. In an effort to establish the validity and reliability of these methods in defining the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus, we investigated differences in volumetry between manual delinea...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2018-04, Vol.170, p.182-198
Hauptverfasser: Makowski, Carolina, Béland, Sophie, Kostopoulos, Penelope, Bhagwat, Nikhil, Devenyi, Gabriel A., Malla, Ashok K., Joober, Ridha, Lepage, Martin, Chakravarty, M. Mallar
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Accurate automated quantification of subcortical structures is a greatly pursued endeavour in neuroimaging. In an effort to establish the validity and reliability of these methods in defining the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus, we investigated differences in volumetry between manual delineation and automated segmentations derived by widely used FreeSurfer and FSL packages, and a more recent segmentation method, the MAGeT-Brain algorithm. In a first set of experiments, the basal ganglia and thalamus of thirty subjects (15 first episode psychosis [FEP], 15 controls) were manually defined and compared to the labels generated by the three automated methods. Our results suggest that all methods overestimate volumes compared to the manually derived “gold standard”, with the least pronounced differences produced using MAGeT. The least between-method variability was noted for the striatum, whereas marked differences between manual segmentation and MAGeT compared to FreeSurfer and FSL emerged for the globus pallidus and thalamus. Correlations between manual segmentation and automated methods were strongest for MAGeT (range: 0.51 to 0.92; pFEP). These results suggest that different automated pipelines segment sub
ISSN:1053-8119
1095-9572
DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.069