Performance of five research-domain automated WM lesion segmentation methods in a multi-center MS study

Alexandra de Sitter*, Martijn D. Steenwijk, Aurélie Ruet, Adriaan Versteeg, Yaou Liu, Ronald A. van Schijndel, Petra J.W. Pouwels, Iris D. Kilsdonk, Keith S. Cover, Bob W. van Dijk, Stefan Ropele, Maria A. Rocca, Marios Yiannakas, Mike P. Wattjes, Soheil Damangir, Giovanni B. Frisoni, Jaume Sastre-Garriga, Alex Rovira, Christian Enzinger, Massimo FilippiJette L. Frederiksen, Olga Ciccarelli, Ludwig Kappos, Frederik Barkhof, Hugo Vrenken, MAGNIMS Study Group, neuGRID

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background and Purpose In vivoidentification of white matter lesions plays a key-role in evaluation of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Automated lesion segmentation methods have been developed to substitute manual outlining, but evidence of their performance in multi-center investigations is lacking. In this work, five research-domain automated segmentation methods were evaluated using a multi-center MS dataset. Methods 70 MS patients (median EDSS of 2.0 [range 0.0–6.5]) were included from a six-center dataset of the MAGNIMS Study Group (www.magnims.eu) which included 2D FLAIR and 3D T1 images with manual lesion segmentation as a reference. Automated lesion segmentations were produced using five algorithms: Cascade; Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (LST) with both the Lesion growth algorithm (LGA) and the Lesion prediction algorithm (LPA); Lesion-Topology preserving Anatomical Segmentation (Lesion-TOADS); and k-Nearest Neighbor with Tissue Type Priors (kNN-TTP). Main software parameters were optimized using a training set (N = 18), and formal testing was performed on the remaining patients (N = 52). To evaluate volumetric agreement with the reference segmentations, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as well as mean difference in lesion volumes between the automated and reference segmentations were calculated. The Similarity Index (SI), False Positive (FP) volumes and False Negative (FN) volumes were used to examine spatial agreement. All analyses were repeated using a leave-one-center-out design to exclude the center of interest from the training phase to evaluate the performance of the method on ‘unseen’ center. Results Compared to the reference mean lesion volume (4.85 ± 7.29 mL), the methods displayed a mean difference of 1.60 ± 4.83 (Cascade), 2.31 ± 7.66 (LGA), 0.44 ± 4.68 (LPA), 1.76 ± 4.17 (Lesion-TOADS) and −1.39 ± 4.10 mL (kNN-TTP). The ICCs were 0.755, 0.713, 0.851, 0.806 and 0.723, respectively. Spatial agreement with reference segmentations was higher for LPA (SI = 0.37 ± 0.23), Lesion-TOADS (SI = 0.35 ± 0.18) and kNN-TTP (SI = 0.44 ± 0.14) than for Cascade (SI = 0.26 ± 0.17) or LGA (SI = 0.31 ± 0.23). All methods showed highly similar results when used on data from a center not used in software parameter optimization. Conclusion The performance of the methods in this multi-center MS dataset was moderate, but appeared to be robust even with new datasets from centers not included in training the automated methods.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)106-114
Number of pages9
JournalNeuroImage
Volume163
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

Cite this