Subcortical brain segmentation in 5-year-old children: validation of FSL-FIRST and FreeSurfer against manual segmentation
Lidauer, K.; Pulli, E. P.; Copeland, A.; Silver, E.; Kumpulainen, V.; Hashempour, N.; Merisaari, H.; Saunavaara, J.; Parkkola, R.; Lahdesmaki, T.; Saukko, E.; Nolvi, S.; Kataja, E.-L.; Karlsson, L.; Karlsson, H.; Tuulari, J. J.
Show abstract
Developing accurate subcortical volumetric quantification tools is crucial for neurodevelopmental studies, as they could reduce the need for challenging and time-consuming manual segmentation. In this study the accuracy of two automated segmentation tools, FSL-FIRST (with three different boundary correction settings) and FreeSurfer were compared against manual segmentation of subcortical nuclei, including the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, putamen, globus pallidus, caudate and nucleus accumbens, using volumetric and correlation analyses in 80 5-year-olds. Both FSL-FIRST and FreeSurfer overestimated the volume on all structures except the caudate, and the accuracy varied depending on the structure. Small structures such as the amygdala and nucleus accumbens, which are visually difficult to distinguish, produced significant overestimations and weaker correlations with all automated methods. Larger and more readily distinguishable structures such as the caudate and putamen produced notably lower overestimations and stronger correlations. Overall, the segmentations performed by FSL-FIRSTs Default pipeline were the most accurate, while FreeSurfers results were weaker across the structures. In line with prior studies, the accuracy of automated segmentation tools was imperfect with respect to manually defined structures. However, apart from amygdala and nucleus accumbens, FSL-FIRSTs agreement could be considered satisfactory (Pearson correlation > 0.74, Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.68 and Dice Score coefficient (DSC) > 0.87) with highest values for the striatal structures (putamen, globus pallidus and caudate) (Pearson correlation > 0.77, ICC > 0.87 and DSC > 0.88, respectively). Overall, automated segmentation tools do not always provide satisfactory results, and careful visual inspection of the automated segmentations is strongly advised.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A framework for evaluating correspondence between brain images using anatomical fiducials 97%
- A (Sub)field Guide to Quality Control in Hippocampal Subfield Segmentation on High-resolution T2-weighted MRI 96%
- Performance of three freely available methods for extracting white matter hyperintensities: FreeSurfer, UBO Detector and BIANCA 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quality control strategies for brain MRI segmentation and parcellation: practical approaches and recommendations - insights from The Maastricht Study 97%
- Is it Time to Switch Your T1W Sequence? Assessing the Impact of Prospective Motion Correction on the Reliability and Quality of Structural Imaging 97%
- Reliability Assessment of Tissue Classification Algorithms for Multi-Center and Multi-Scanner Data 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Charting the human amygdala development across childhood and adolescence: Manual and automatic segmentation 97%
- Corpus callosum structural characteristics in very preterm children and adolescents: developmental trajectory and relationship to cognitive functioning 95%
- Head motion during fMRI tasks is reduced in children and adults if participants take breaks 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.