Differences Between MR Brain Region Segmentation Methods: Impact on Single-Subject Analysis

Wyke Huizinga, Dirk H. J. Poot, Elisabeth J. Vinke, F. Wenzel, Esther Bron, N. Toussaint, Christian Ledig, Henri A. Vrooman, Mohammad Arfan Ikram, Wiro J. Niessen, Meike W. Vernooij, Stefan Klein

Abstract: For the segmentation of magnetic resonance brain images into anatomical regions, numerous fully automated methods have been proposed and compared to reference segmentations obtained manually. However, systematic differences might exist between the resulting segmentations, depending on the segmentation method and underlying brain atlas. This potentially results in sensitivity differences to disease and can further complicate the comparison of individual patients to normative data. In this study, we aim to answer two research questions: 1) to what extent are methods interchangeable, as long as the same method is being used for computing normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? and 2) can different methods be used for computing normative volume distributions and assessing patient-specific volumes? To answer these questions, we compared volumes of six brain regions calculated by five state-of-the-art segmentation methods: Erasmus MC (EMC), FreeSurfer (FS), geodesic information flows (GIF), multi-atlas label propagation with expectation–maximization (MALP-EM), and model-based brain segmentation (MBS). We applied the methods on 988 non-demented (ND) subjects and computed the correlation (PCC-v) and absolute agreement (ICC-v) on the volumes. For most regions, the PCC-v was good (>0.75), indicating that volume differences between methods in ND subjects are mainly due to systematic differences. The ICC-v was generally lower, especially for the smaller regions, i...