Synopsis
Automatic
brain extraction, as a standard pre-processing step, typically suffers from a long
runtime and inaccuracies caused by brain variations and limited qualities of MR
images. We propose a generic supervised learning framework that builds binary
classifiers to identify brain and non-brain tissues at different resolution
levels, hierarchically performs voxel-wise classifications for a test subject,
and refines the brain boundary using narrow-band level set technique on the
classification map. The proposed method is evaluated on multiple datasets with
different acquisition sequences and scanner types using uni- or multi-contrast
images and shown to be fast, accurate, and robust.Introduction
Brain
extraction is a standard preprocessing step for subsequent tasks such as bias
field correction, tissue segmentation, and cortical surface reconstruction. This
process is challenging to fully automate, due to the anatomical variations of
the brain and the imperfections in MR images. Existing approaches could be
categorized into boundary-based
1, region-based
2,
atlas-based
3, learning-based
4, and hybrid
5 methods,
all of which have strengths and weaknesses (e.g., sensitivity to noise for
boundary/region-based, computational costs for atlas-based, feature/classifier
design for learning-based methods, etc.) We herein present a generic supervised
learning framework for fast, accurate, and robust brain extraction with extendibility
to multi-contrast data.
Methods
Our framework is based
on multi-resolution
classification on uni/multimodal MR data. First, standard preprocessing steps
are applied to normalize the intensity distributions for the input data and affinely
register it to a preselected template. Next, the training stage is triggered to
build binary classifiers at four spatial resolution levels (i.e., the original
images and the ones downsampled by 2, 4, and 8), which involves data sampling,
feature extraction, and random forests learning for each level. Specifically, a
sampling region is estimated by morphologically processing the ground truth
mask to highlight a narrow band along the boundaries. For each randomly drawn
sample from this region, the conventional spatial features, multi-scale
intensity contextual features
6, and spatial prior features (i.e.,
contextual features computed on the averaged group mask at the coarsest level)
are extracted, followed by the use of random forests
7 as binary
classifiers. For an unseen image, starting with the average group mask at the coarsest
level, we hierarchically refine the boundary by classifying voxels in a fixed-size
narrow band along previous estimations. At the finest level, we couple the
voxelwise classification with a narrow band level set approach
8 using
Chan-Vese
9 region force to dynamically determine the test voxels. As
the front propagates, the narrow band shifts accordingly and classification
scores are computed only for the newly appeared voxels. This allows the surface
to recover from previous mistakes without examining a large search region. We
also induce a curvature term in the front propagation as regularization to
maintain a smooth closed surface.
Results
We
evaluate our framework on multiple datasets with different acquisition
sequences and scanner types using single or multi-contrast images. We first
consider the LONI-LPBA40
10 dataset, which comprises 40 normal
subjects each with a 1.5T T1-weighted image and a manually delineated brain
mask. We randomly split the dataset into 20 for training and the other 20 for
testing. The worst, an average, and the best results are illustrated in Figure 1, together with those using BET, a publicly available tool in FSL. Our
segmentations are accurate while BET consistently oversegments the brain near
the hippocampus. This observation is reflected in Figure 2 for all test
subjects, as our method yields higher Dice, Jaccard, and specificity values,
while BET achieves higher sensitivity due to oversegmentation. The same
classifiers are then tested on a traumatic brain injury dataset of 10 subjects,
each with a 3T T1-weighted image, and acceptable results are obtained (Figure 3).
Additional tests are performed on the ATAG
11 dataset of 53 normal
subjects, each with a 7T T1-weighted image. We randomly select 20 subjects to
retrain the classifiers and test on the remaining 33. As there is no manual
annotation, we use the brain masks produced by the CBS
12 tools for
MIPAV as pseudo ground truth. We again obtain results that are better than the
ones produced (whenever reasonable) by the CBS tools (Figure 4). In our final
experiment, we consider a subset of the HCP
13 datasets, which contains
50 normal subjects of 3T T1-weighted and T2-weighted images. To adapt our
algorithm for multi-modal images, we extract the intensity contextual features
from each co-registered image sequence independently and concatenate them to
form the entire feature set. Considering the brain masks computed by the HCP
processing pipeline as a pseudo ground truth, we retrain our models using
randomly selected 20 cases and evaluate those models on the remaining 30. With
a mean Dice coefficient of 0.98 and Jaccard index of 0.96, our multi-contrast
framework achieves high accuracy, with a typical case shown in Figure 5.
Conclusion
We present a generic framework for MR brain
extraction using hierarchical voxelwise classification coupled with narrow band
level set. Through a series of experiments, we
demonstrate that our method is accurate and robust across various scanners at
different strength of magnetic field with natural extendibility for
multi-contrast data. It is also very fast, taking only 30 seconds to strip the
skull on a standard preprocessed image.
Acknowledgements
Yuan Liu performed this work while at Siemens Healthcare.References
1. Smith S. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002; 17(3):143-55.
2. Shattuck D, Sandor-Leahy S, Schaper K, et al. Magnetic resonance image tissue classification using a
partial volume model.
Neuroimage. 2001; 13(5):856-76.
3. Heckemann R, Ledig C, Gray K, et al. Brain extraction using label propagation and group agreement: Pincram. PLoS One. 2015;
10(7):e0129211.
4. Iglesias J, Liu C, Thompson P, et al. Robust brain
extraction across datasets and comparison with publicly available methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2011;
30(9):1617-34.
5. Shi F, Wang L, Dai Y, et al. LABEL: pediatric brain extraction using learning-based meta-algorithm. Neuroimage. 2012; 62(3):1975-86.
6. Pauly O,
Glocker B, Criminisi A, et al. Fast multiple organ detection and localization
in whole-body MR Dixon sequences. In: MICCAI. 2011; 239-47.
7. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001; 45(1):5-32.
8. Adalsteinsson D, Sethian J. A fast level set method for propagating
interfaces. J Comput Phys. 1995; 118(2):269-77.
9. Chan T, Vese L. Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2001; 10(2):266-77.
10. Shattuck D, Mirza M, Adisetiyo V, et al.
Construction of a 3D probabilistic atlas of
human cortical structures. Neuroimage. 2008; 39(3):1064-80.
11. Forstmann B, Keuken M, Schafer A, et al. Multi-modal ultra-high resolution structural 7-Tesla
MRI data repository. Sci Data. 2014;
1:140050.
12. Bazin P, Weiss M, Dinse J, et al. A computational framework for ultra-high resolution cortical segmentation at 7 Tesla, Neuroimage. 2014; 93(2):201-9.
13. Van Essen
DC, Ugurbil K, Auerbach E, et al. The human connectome project: a data acquisition perspective. Neuroimage. 2012; 62(4):2222-31.