Multi-atlas label fusion with random local binary pattern features: Application to hippocampus segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic and reliable segmentation of the hippocampus from magnetic resonance (MR) brain images is extremely important in a variety of neuroimage studies. To improve the hippocampus segmentation performance, a local binary pattern based feature extraction method is developed for machine learning based multi-atlas hippocampus segmentation. Under the framework of multi-atlas image segmentation (MAIS), a set of selected atlases are registered to images to be segmented using a non-linear image registration algorithm. The registered atlases are then used as training data to build linear regression models for segmenting the images based on the image features, referred to as random local binary pattern (RLBP), extracted using a novel image feature extraction method. The RLBP based MAIS algorithm has been validated for segmenting hippocampus based on a data set of 135 T1 MR images which are from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database (adni.loni.usc.edu). By using manual segmentation labels produced by experienced tracers as the standard of truth, six segmentation evaluation metrics were used to evaluate the image segmentation results by comparing automatic segmentation results with the manual segmentation labels. We further computed Cohen's d effect size to investigate the sensitivity of each segmenting method in detecting volumetric differences of the hippocampus between different groups of subjects. The evaluation results showed that our method was competitive to state-of-the-art label fusion methods in terms of accuracy. Hippocampal volumetric analysis showed that the proposed RLBP method performed well in detecting the volumetric differences of the hippocampus between groups of Alzheimer's disease patients, mild cognitive impairment subjects, and normal controls. These results have demonstrated that the RLBP based multi-atlas image segmentation method could facilitate efficient and accurate extraction of the hippocampus and may help predict Alzheimer's disease. The codes of the proposed method is available (https://www.nitrc.org/frs/?group_id=1242).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".