↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Segmentation of Corpus Callosum in Midsagittal Based on Bayesian Inference Consisting of Sparse Representation Error and Multi-Atlas Voting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Automatic Segmentation of Corpus Callosum in Midsagittal Based on Bayesian Inference Consisting of Sparse Representation Error and Multi-Atlas Voting
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00629
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gilsoon Park, Kichang Kwak, Sang Won Seo, Jong-Min Lee

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a novel automatic method for Corpus Callosum (CC) in midsagittal plane segmentation. The robust segmentation of CC in midsagittal plane is key role for quantitative study of structural features of CC associated with various neurological disorder such as epilepsy, autism, Alzheimer's disease, and so on. Our approach is based on Bayesian inference using sparse representation and multi-atlas voting which both methods are used in various medical imaging, and show outstanding performance. Prior information in the proposed Bayesian inference is obtained from probability map generated from multi-atlas voting. The probability map contains the information of shape and location of CC of target image. Likelihood in the proposed Bayesian inference is obtained from gamma distribution function, generated from reconstruction errors (or sparse representation error), which are calculated in sparse representation of target patch using foreground dictionary and background dictionary each. Unlike the usual sparse representation method, we added gradient magnitude and gradient direction information to the patches of dictionaries and target, which had better segmentation performance than when not added. We compared three main segmentation results as follow: (1) the joint label fusion (JLF) method which is state-of-art method in multi-atlas voting based segmentation for evaluation of our method; (2) prior information estimated from multi-atlas voting only; (3) likelihood estimated from comparison of the reconstruction errors from sparse representation error only; (4) the proposed Bayesian inference. The methods were evaluated using two data sets of T1-weighted images, which one data set consists of 100 normal young subjects and the other data set consist of 25 normal old subjects and 22 old subjects with heavy drinker. In both data sets, the proposed Bayesian inference method has significantly the best segmentation performance than using each method separately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Computer Science 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,459
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,679
of 347,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#227
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 347,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.