We present a novel skull-stripping algorithm based on a hybrid approach that combines watershed algorithms and deformable surface models. Our method takes advantage of the robustness of the former as well as the surface information available to the latter. The algorithm first localizes a single white matter voxel in a T1-weighted MRI image, and uses it to create a global minimum in the white matter before applying a watershed algorithm with a preflooding height. The watershed algorithm builds an initial estimate of the brain volume based on the three-dimensional connectivity of the white matter. This first step is robust, and performs well in the presence of intensity nonuniformities and noise, but may erode parts of the cortex that abut bright nonbrain structures such as the eye sockets, or may remove parts of the cerebellum. To correct these inaccuracies, a surface deformation process fits a smooth surface to the masked volume, allowing the incorporation of geometric constraints into the skullstripping procedure. A statistical atlas, generated from a set of accurately segmented brains, is used to validate and potentially correct the segmentation, and the MRI intensity values are locally re-estimated at the boundary of the brain. Finally, a high-resolution surface deformation is performed that accurately matches the outer boundary of the brain, resulting in a robust and automated procedure. Studies by our group and others outperform other publicly available skullstripping tools.

We present a novel skull-stripping algorithm based on a hybrid approach that combines watershed algorithms and deformable surface models. Our method takes advantage of the robustness of the former as well as the surface information available to the latter. The algorithm first localizes a single white matter voxel in a T1-weighted MRI image, and uses it to create a global minimum in the white matter before applying a watershed algorithm with a preflooding height. The watershed algorithm builds an initial estimate of the brain volume based on the three-dimensional connectivity of the white matter. This first step is robust, and performs well in the presence of intensity nonuniformities and noise, but may erode parts of the cortex that abut bright nonbrain structures such as the eye sockets, or may remove parts of the cerebellum. To correct these inaccuracies, a surface deformation process fits a smooth surface to the masked volume, allowing the incorporation of geometric constraints into the skullstripping procedure. A statistical atlas, generated from a set of accurately segmented brains, is used to validate and potentially correct the segmentation, and the MRI intensity values are locally re-estimated at the boundary of the brain. Finally, a high-resolution surface deformation is performed that accurately matches the outer boundary of the brain, resulting in a robust and automated procedure. Studies by our group and others outperform other publicly available skullstripping tools.

SC MRI parameters including baseline UCCA and SC lesions were significant MRI predictors of disease progression. Progressive 24-month upper SC atrophy occurred in all MS subtypes, and was faster in patients exhibiting disease progression at month-24.

Automatic liver tumor segmentation would have a big impact on liver therapy planning procedures and follow-up assessment, thanks to standardization and incorporation of full volumetric information. In this work, we develop a fully automatic method for liver tumor segmentation in CT images based on a 2D fully convolutional neural network with an object-based postprocessing step. We describe our experiments on the LiTS challenge training data set and evaluate segmentation and detection performance. Our proposed design cascading two models working on voxel- and object-level allowed for a significant reduction of false positive findings by 85% when compared with the raw neural network output. In comparison with the human performance, our approach achieves a similar segmentation quality for detected tumors (mean Dice 0.69 vs. 0.72), but is inferior in the detection performance (recall 63% vs. 92%). Finally, we describe how we participated in the LiTS challenge and achieved state-of-the-art performance.