↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Accuracy and Reliability of Automated Gray Matter Segmentation Pathways on Real and Simulated Structural Magnetic Resonance Images of the Human Brain

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Accuracy and Reliability of Automated Gray Matter Segmentation Pathways on Real and Simulated Structural Magnetic Resonance Images of the Human Brain
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0045081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucas D. Eggert, Jens Sommer, Andreas Jansen, Tilo Kircher, Carsten Konrad

Abstract

Automated gray matter segmentation of magnetic resonance imaging data is essential for morphometric analyses of the brain, particularly when large sample sizes are investigated. However, although detection of small structural brain differences may fundamentally depend on the method used, both accuracy and reliability of different automated segmentation algorithms have rarely been compared. Here, performance of the segmentation algorithms provided by SPM8, VBM8, FSL and FreeSurfer was quantified on simulated and real magnetic resonance imaging data. First, accuracy was assessed by comparing segmentations of twenty simulated and 18 real T1 images with corresponding ground truth images. Second, reliability was determined in ten T1 images from the same subject and in ten T1 images of different subjects scanned twice. Third, the impact of preprocessing steps on segmentation accuracy was investigated. VBM8 showed a very high accuracy and a very high reliability. FSL achieved the highest accuracy but demonstrated poor reliability and FreeSurfer showed the lowest accuracy, but high reliability. An universally valid recommendation on how to implement morphometric analyses is not warranted due to the vast number of scanning and analysis parameters. However, our analysis suggests that researchers can optimize their individual processing procedures with respect to final segmentation quality and exemplifies adequate performance criteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 2%
United States 4 2%
Malaysia 2 1%
Netherlands 2 1%
Austria 2 1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 152 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 22%
Student > Master 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 22%
Psychology 29 17%
Neuroscience 23 13%
Engineering 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 40 23%