1996
DOI: 10.1016/0730-725x(96)00018-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of MRI lesion load in multiple sclerosis: A comparison of three computer-assisted techniques

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
141
0
2

Year Published

1999
1999
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(146 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
3
141
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Many of these methods rely on the reader to detect the lesion, and then performs the segmentation (under user control) based on a local threshold (Filippi et al, 1995a), region growing (Ashton et al, 2003;Parodi et al, 2002), fuzzy connectedness (Udupa et al, 1997), or the intensity gradient (Grimaud et al, 1996). All of these methods have demonstrated reduced variability in comparison to manual segmentation for lesion quantification.…”
Section: Segmentation Of Wmlmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Many of these methods rely on the reader to detect the lesion, and then performs the segmentation (under user control) based on a local threshold (Filippi et al, 1995a), region growing (Ashton et al, 2003;Parodi et al, 2002), fuzzy connectedness (Udupa et al, 1997), or the intensity gradient (Grimaud et al, 1996). All of these methods have demonstrated reduced variability in comparison to manual segmentation for lesion quantification.…”
Section: Segmentation Of Wmlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistency in lesion segmentation throughout slices is therefore hard to achieve, and consistency between different reading sessions is made difficult because the reader sets the overall contrast of an image, which influences the relative appearance of tissues. Many studies have investigated the wide variability inherent to manual lesion segmentation by neuroradiologists or other trained experts and have reported volume differences ranging from 10% to 68% (Grimaud et al, 1996;Styner et al, 2008;Zijdenbos et al, 2002).…”
Section: Segmentation Of Wmlmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We used very similar T2 weighted and FATSAT sequence with 10 consequent coronal oblique sections, between eye ball and optic canal and have 2 mm section interval, for 3D reconstruction and volume calculations. Hickman et al 18 used computer aided contouring method, which was designed by Grimaud et al 21 , in their studies. We used manual contouring software, called SurfDriver that was improved by Scott Lozanoff and David Moody, for this study.…”
Section: D Reconstruction and Volume Calculation Of The Intraorbitalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, for three-dimensional data this typically requires a slice-by-slice analysis, making the whole process cumbersome and time-consuming for the neuroradiologist. Also, the intra-and inter-rater variability have been reported to be high [72]. Clinical studies with hundreds of patients require, therefore, automated and robust segmentation methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%