↓ Skip to main content

Semi-automated segmentation of pre-operative low grade gliomas in magnetic resonance imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Semi-automated segmentation of pre-operative low grade gliomas in magnetic resonance imaging
Published in
Cancer Imaging, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40644-015-0047-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zeynettin Akkus, Jiri Sedlar, Lucie Coufalova, Panagiotis Korfiatis, Timothy L. Kline, Joshua D. Warner, Jay Agrawal, Bradley J. Erickson

Abstract

Segmentation of pre-operative low-grade gliomas (LGGs) from magnetic resonance imaging is a crucial step for studying imaging biomarkers. However, segmentation of LGGs is particularly challenging because they rarely enhance after gadolinium administration. Like other gliomas, they have irregular tumor shape, heterogeneous composition, ill-defined tumor boundaries, and limited number of image types. To overcome these challenges we propose a semi-automated segmentation method that relies only on T2-weighted (T2W) and optionally post-contrast T1-weighted (T1W) images. First, the user draws a region-of-interest (ROI) that completely encloses the tumor and some normal tissue. Second, a normal brain atlas and post-contrast T1W images are registered to T2W images. Third, the posterior probability of each pixel/voxel belonging to normal and abnormal tissues is calculated based on information derived from the atlas and ROI. Finally, geodesic active contours use the probability map of the tumor to shrink the ROI until optimal tumor boundaries are found. This method was validated against the true segmentation (TS) of 30 LGG patients for both 2D (1 slice) and 3D. The TS was obtained from manual segmentations of three experts using the Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) software. Dice and Jaccard indices and other descriptive statistics were computed for the proposed method, as well as the experts' segmentation versus the TS. We also tested the method with the BraTS datasets, which supply expert segmentations. For 2D segmentation vs. TS, the mean Dice index was 0.90 ± 0.06 (standard deviation), sensitivity was 0.92, and specificity was 0.99. For 3D segmentation vs. TS, the mean Dice index was 0.89 ± 0.06, sensitivity was 0.91, and specificity was 0.99. The automated results are comparable with the experts' manual segmentation results. We present an accurate, robust, efficient, and reproducible segmentation method for pre-operative LGGs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 28%
Engineering 8 16%
Physics and Astronomy 7 14%
Computer Science 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#57
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,272
of 276,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,627 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them