Back

Comparison of Automated White Matter Lesion Segmentation Approaches for Use in Large, Multi-Site Data Analyses in Parkinson's Disease

Al-Bachari, S.; Yoon, S. H.; Emson, P.; Angell, S.; Cain, J.; Abraham, A.; Chugtai, A.; Sizer, E.; Barnes, E.; Al-Wardy, M.; Kannan, S.; Paul-Thaper, R.; Bright, J.; Owens-Walton, C.; McMillan, C. T.; Klein, J. C.; Griffanti, L.; Thomopoulos, S. I.; Jahanshad, N.; Thompson, P. M.; van der Werf, Y. D.; Vriend, C.; Parkes, L. M.; Emsley, H. C. A.; Schrag, A.; Haroon, H. A.

2026-05-30 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.05.27.726795 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundParkinsons disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder. PD currently lacks effective disease-modifying treatments, likely due to its diverse clinical features and underlying neuropathology. The vascular role in PD is emerging, with vascular mechanisms increasingly implicated, yet the literature remains conflicted, motivating large-data analyses with greater statistical power. White matter lesions (WML) are an accepted imaging marker of small vessel disease. Accurate automated WML segmentation techniques are crucial for large-scale studies in PD due to the impracticality of manual segmentation for extensive datasets and to ensure consistency. Evaluation of the optimum approach in PD for large-scale analysis is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate various automated WML segmentation algorithms to determine the most accurate and reliable method, among those selected, for assessing WML for multi-site large data analysis in PD. MethodsWe assessed whole-brain volumetric T1-weighted and FLAIR images from 201 PD patients (mean age, 66.6 {+/-} 7.86 years) and 64 healthy controls (HC; mean age, 66.3 {+/-} 8.67) across three datasets: the Parkinsons Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) and the Montreal Neurological Institute Biobank: Clinical Biological Imaging and Genetic Repository (C-BIG). The sample included different scanners, imaging parameters and lesion loads, as would be expected for multi-site data. WML were manually segmented to provide the gold standard, and four freely available automated algorithms were evaluated: FSLs BIANCA, FreeSurfer, SPMs LST-LPA and U-Net-pgs using the performance metrics: Dice score, Hausdorff distance, recall, precision, F1 score, log absolute volume difference (LOGAVD) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Subgroup analyses were performed based on lesion load and lobar regions. The associations of data from these automated approaches with age, and with Fazekas and Wahlund visual rating scales, were assessed through partial correlation analysis. ResultsU-Net-pgs performed best overall, with the highest Dice score (PD: 0.46 {+/-} 0.21; HC: 0.39 {+/-} 0.21), recall (PD: 0.76 {+/-} 0.25; HC: 0.62 {+/-} 0.31), precision (PD: 0.49 {+/-} 0.25; HC: 0.63 {+/-} 0.27), F1 score (PD: 0.54 {+/-} 0.22; HC: 0.56 {+/-} 0.22) and ICC (PD: 0.965; HC: 0.967) and lowest Hausdorff distance (PD: 8.89 {+/-} 3.96; HC: 6.33 {+/-} 2.91). U-Net-pgs achieved the lowest LOGAVD in the PD group (0.31 {+/-} 0.31) whereas BIANCA-LOO with a threshold of 0.9 was lowest in HC (0.27 {+/-} 0.30). U-Net also showed superior performances in all lesion loads for PD and overall across various brain regions in both PD and HC. ConclusionOverall, U-Net-pgs emerged as the best performing automated method, of those we evaluated, for WML segmentation in PD and HC within a dataset collected with various scanner and image acquisition parameters. U-Net-pgs consistently outperformed other automated approaches across lesion loads and brain regions, for most metrics. The accuracy and reliability of U-Net-pgs make it a promising tool for large-scale analyses, facilitating future research investigating WML in PD.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.5%
2
npj Parkinson's Disease
89 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.3%
3
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.9%
4
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
5
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.0%
6
Parkinsonism & Related Disorders
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
7
Movement Disorders
62 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
8
Experimental Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.5%
10
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
11
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.9%
13
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
14
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
15
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
20
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
21
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
22
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
24
Brain Connectivity
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
25
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
28
Neurobiology of Aging
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
30
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%