Assessment of Reliability of Multi-site Neuroimaging Via Traveling Phantom Study

  • Sylvain Gouttard
  • Martin Styner
  • Marcel Prastawa
  • Joseph Piven
  • Guido Gerig
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5242)


This paper describes a framework for quantitative analysis of neuroimaging data of traveling human phantoms used for cross-site validation. We focus on the analysis of magnetic resonance image data including intra- and inter-site comparison. Locations and magnitude of geometric deformation is studied via unbiased atlas building and metrics on deformation fields. Variability of tissue segmentation is analyzed by comparison of volumes, overlap of tissue maps, and a new Kullback-Leibler divergence on tissue probabilities, with emphasis on comparing probabilistic rather than binary segmentations. We show that results from this information theoretic measure are highly correlated with overlap. Reproducibility of automatic, atlas-based segmentation of subcortical structures is examined by comparison of volumes, shape overlap and surface distances. Variability among scanners of the same type but also differences to a different scanner type are discussed. The results demonstrate excellent reliability across multiple sites that can be achieved by the use of the today’s scanner generation and powerful automatic analysis software. Knowledge about such variability is crucial for study design and power analysis in new multi-site clinical studies.


Subcortical Structure Scanner Type Tissue Segmentation Binary Segmentation Elastic Registration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jovicich, J., Beg, M.F., Pieper, S., Priebe, C., Miller, M., Buckner, R., Rosen, B.: Biomedical informatics research network: integrating multi-site neuroimaging data acquisition, data sharing and brain morphometric processing. In: 18th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, pp. 288–293. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Han, X., Fischl, B., Sch, H., Hosp, M., Charlestown, M.: Atlas Renormalization for Improved Brain MR Image Segmentation Across Scanner Platforms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 26, 479–486 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christensen, G., Rabbitt, R., Miller, M.: Deformable templates using large deformation kinematics. IEEE TMI 5, 1435–1447 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joshi, S., Davis, B., Jomier, M., Gerig, G.: Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for computational anatomy. Neuro. Image 23 (Suppl. 1), 151–160 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shen, D., Davatzikos, C.: Hammer: hierarchical attribute matching mechanism for elastic registration. IEEE TMI 21, 1421–1439 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Leemput, K., Maes, F., Vandermeulen, D., Suetens, P.: Automated model-based tissue classification of MR images of the brain. IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging 18, 897–908 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wells, W.M., Kikinis, R., Grimson, W.E.L., Jolesz, F.: Adaptive segmentation of MRI data. IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging 15, 429–442 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cocosco, C.A., Zijdenbos, A.P., Evans, A.C.: A fully automatic and robust brain MRI tissue classification method. Medical Image Analysis 7, 513–527 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pohl, K., Bouix, S., Nakamura, M., Rohlfing, T., McCarley, R., Kikinis, R., Grimson, W., Shenton, M., Wells, W.: A hierarchical algorithm for mr brain image parcellation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 26, 1201–1212 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Insight Consortium: Insight Toolkit (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dice, L.R.: Measure of the amount of ecological association between species. Ecology 26, 297–302 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaccard, P.: The distribution of flora in the alpine zone. New Phytologist 11 (1912)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerig, G., Jomier, M., Chakos, M.: VALMET: a new validation tool for assessing and improving 3D object segmentation. In: Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, pp. 516–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gouttard, S., Styner, M., Joshi, S., Smith, R., Cody Hazlett, H., Gerig, G.: Subcortical structure segmentation using probabilistic atlas priors. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, vol. 6512, p. 65122J–1 – 65122J–11 (2007) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvain Gouttard
    • 1
  • Martin Styner
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marcel Prastawa
    • 1
  • Joseph Piven
    • 3
  • Guido Gerig
    • 1
  1. 1.Scientific Computing and Imaging InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations