Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26201875›Full record

ReviewMedical image analysis2015

Multi-atlas segmentation of biomedical images: A survey.

Juan Eugenio Iglesias, Mert R Sabuncu

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical image analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 248 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
248citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

248 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Beyond CT: Attenuation correction for stand-alone brain PET.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. On the accuracy of image registration in portable low-field 3D brain MRI.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

188 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Juan Eugenio IglesiasBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), Spain. Electronic address: e.iglesias@bcbl.eu.
Mert R SabuncuA.A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, USA. Electronic address: msabuncu@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Multivariate Pattern Analysis Methods for Neuroimaging Genetics StudiesK25EB013649 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SABUNCU, MERT RORY · 2011 to 2015
$877k
NIBIB NIH HHS 1K25EB013649-01NIBIB NIH HHS K25 EB013649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-atlas segmentation (MAS), first introduced and popularized by the pioneering work of Rohlfing, et al. (2004), Klein, et al. (2005), and Heckemann, et al. (2006), is becoming one of the most widely-used and successful image segmentation techniques in biomedical applications. By manipulating and utilizing the entire dataset of "atlases" (training images that have been previously labeled, e.g., manually by an expert), rather than some model-based average representation, MAS has the flexibility to better capture anatomical variation, thus offering superior segmentation accuracy. This benefit, however, typically comes at a high computational cost. Recent advancements in computer hardware and image processing software have been instrumental in addressing this challenge and facilitated the wide adoption of MAS. Today, MAS has come a long way and the approach includes a wide array of sophisticated algorithms that employ ideas from machine learning, probabilistic modeling, optimization, and computer vision, among other fields. This paper presents a survey of published MAS algorithms and studies that have applied these methods to various biomedical problems. In writing this survey, we have three distinct aims. Our primary goal is to document how MAS was originally conceived, later evolved, and now relates to alternative methods. Second, this paper is intended to be a detailed reference of past research activity in MAS, which now spans over a decade (2003-2014) and entails novel methodological developments and application-specific solutions. Finally, our goal is to also present a perspective on the future of MAS, which, we believe, will be one of the dominant approaches in biomedical image segmentation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedPattern Recognition, AutomatedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySubtraction TechniqueLabel fusionMulti-atlas segmentationSurvey

Identifiers

PMID26201875
PMCPMC4532640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.