Validation of image segmentation by estimating rater bias and variance

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Volumn 366, Issue 1874, 2008, Pages 2361-2375

  Warfield, Simon K ^a   Zou, Kelly H ^a   Wells, William M ^b  

^a BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Expectation maximization; Magnetic resonance imaging; MRI; Segmentation; Tumour; Validation

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ESTIMATION; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; IMAGING SYSTEMS; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; SET THEORY; STANDARDS;

(1 1 0) SURFACE; ACCURACY AND PRECISION; ANATOMICAL CHARACTERISTICS; AUTOMATED IMAGE ANALYSIS; BIAS AND VARIANCE; CLINICAL DATA; DIGITAL PHANTOMS; DISTANCE TRANSFORMS; DOMAIN EXPERTS (DES); GROUND TRUTH; IMAGING DATA; LEVEL SET (LS); MEDICAL IMAGES; NEW ALGORITHM; PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS; REFERENCE STANDARDS;

MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS;

ALGORITHM; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOMETRY; BRAIN TUMOR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; VALIDATION STUDY;

ALGORITHMS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BAYES THEOREM; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMETRY; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING;

EID: 45749121580     PISSN: 1364503X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0040     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Dempster, A., Laird, N. & Rubin, D. 1977 Maximum-likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 39, 34-37.
2. Dice, L. R. 1945 Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26, 297-302. (doi:10.2307 / 1932409)
3. McLachlan, G. J. & Krishnan, T. 1996 The EM algorithm and extensions. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
4. Rohlfing, T., Russakoff, D. B. & Maurer, C. R. 2003 Expectation maximization strategies for multi-atlas multi-label segmentation. In Proc. Int. Conf. Information Processing in Medical Imaging, pp. 210-221.
5. Rohlfing, T., Russakoff, D. B. & Maurer, C. R. 2004 Performance-based classifier combination in atlas-based image segmentation using expectation-maximization parameter estimation. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 23, 983-994. (doi:10.1109/TMI.2004.830803)
6. Warfield, S. K., Zou, K. H. & Wells, W. M. 2002 Validation of image segmentation and expert quality with an expectation-maximization algorithm. In MICCAI 2002: Fifth Int. Conf. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention; 25-28 September 2002, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 298-306. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
7. Warfield, S. K., Zou, K. H. & Wells, W. M. 2004 Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 23, 903-921. (doi:10.1109/TMI.2004.828354)
8. Warfield, S. K., Zou, K. H. & Wells, W. M. 2006 Validation of image segmentation by estimating rater bias and variance. In MICCAI 2006: Ninth Int. Conf. Medical Image Computing and Computer Aided Intervention; 1-6 October 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 839-847. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.