ArticleHuman brain mapping2018
An efficient and accurate method for robust inter-dataset brain extraction and comparisons with 9 other methods.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing Inter-Individual Differences in Task fMRI Preprocessing with OGRE (One-Step General Registration and Extraction) Preprocessing.Neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Accurate and robust segmentation of neuroanatomy in T1-weighted MRI by combining spatial priors with deep convolutional neural networks.Human brain mapping · 2020Article
- Automated brain extraction of multisequence MRI using artificial neural networks.Human brain mapping · 2019Article
- An efficient and accurate method for robust inter-dataset brain extraction and comparisons with 9 other methods.Human brain mapping · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain extraction is an important first step in many magnetic resonance neuroimaging studies. Due to variability in brain morphology and in the appearance of the brain due to differences in scanner acquisition parameters, the development of a generally applicable brain extraction algorithm has proven challenging. Learning-based brain extraction algorithms in particular perform well when the target and training images are sufficiently similar, but often perform worse when this condition is not met. In this study, we propose a new patch-based multi-atlas segmentation method for brain extraction which is specifically developed for accurate and robust processing across datasets. Using a diverse collection of labeled images from 5 different datasets, extensive comparisons were made with 9 other commonly used brain extraction methods, both before and after applying error correction (a machine learning method for automatically correcting segmentation errors) to each method. The proposed method performed equal to or better than the other methods in each of two segmentation scenarios: a challenging inter-dataset segmentation scenario in which no dataset-specific atlases were used (mean Dice coefficient 98.57%, volumetric correlation 0.994 across datasets following error correction), and an intra-dataset segmentation scenario in which only dataset-specific atlases were used (mean Dice coefficient 99.02%, volumetric correlation 0.998 across datasets following error correction). Furthermore, combined with error correction, the proposed method runs in less than one-tenth of the time required by the other top-performing methods in the challenging inter-dataset comparisons. Validation on an independent multi-centre dataset also confirmed the excellent performance of the proposed method.
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.