ArticleNeuroImage2018
Brain extraction from normal and pathological images: A joint PCA/Image-Reconstruction approach.
Article in NeuroImage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- MICAFlow: Fast and robust MRI preprocessing bridging research neuroimaging and clinical practice.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Neuroimaging of Alzheimer's Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effect of data leakage in brain MRI classification using 2D convolutional neural networks.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- State-of-the-Art Traditional to the Machine- and Deep-Learning-Based Skull Stripping Techniques, Models, and Algorithms.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
- A Deep Network for Joint Registration and Reconstruction of Images with Pathologies.Machine learning in medical imaging. MLMI (Workshop) · 2020Article
- Automated brain extraction of multisequence MRI using artificial neural networks.Human brain mapping · 2019Article
- Low-Rank Based Image Analyses for Pathological MR Image Segmentation and Recovery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain extraction from 3D medical images is a common pre-processing step. A variety of approaches exist, but they are frequently only designed to perform brain extraction from images without strong pathologies. Extracting the brain from images exhibiting strong pathologies, for example, the presence of a brain tumor or of a traumatic brain injury (TBI), is challenging. In such cases, tissue appearance may substantially deviate from normal tissue appearance and hence violates algorithmic assumptions for standard approaches to brain extraction; consequently, the brain may not be correctly extracted. This paper proposes a brain extraction approach which can explicitly account for pathologies by jointly modeling normal tissue appearance and pathologies. Specifically, our model uses a three-part image decomposition: (1) normal tissue appearance is captured by principal component analysis (PCA), (2) pathologies are captured via a total variation term, and (3) the skull and surrounding tissue is captured by a sparsity term. Due to its convexity, the resulting decomposition model allows for efficient optimization. Decomposition and image registration steps are alternated to allow statistical modeling of normal tissue appearance in a fixed atlas coordinate system. As a beneficial side effect, the decomposition model allows for the identification of potentially pathological areas and the reconstruction of a quasi-normal image in atlas space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on four datasets: the publicly available IBSR and LPBA40 datasets which show normal image appearance, the BRATS dataset containing images with brain tumors, and a dataset containing clinical TBI images. We compare the performance with other popular brain extraction models: ROBEX, BEaST, MASS, BET, BSE and a recently proposed deep learning approach. Our model performs better than these competing approaches on all four datasets. Specifically, our model achieves the best median (97.11) and mean (96.88) Dice scores over all datasets. The two best performing competitors, ROBEX and MASS, achieve scores of 96.23/95.62 and 96.67/94.25 respectively. Hence, our approach is an effective method for high quality brain extraction for a wide variety of images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.