2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.053
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of different automated methods for the detection of white matter lesions in MRI data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
57
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
57
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…21 Combinations of multiple sequences have proved to largely remove the artifactual confound. 30,31 The study also has limitations. Despite the fact that visual assessment and categorization of PVWMH in "borderline" cases were discussed and agreed on between the 2 observers, the distinction from 1 category to another was not clear in some cases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…21 Combinations of multiple sequences have proved to largely remove the artifactual confound. 30,31 The study also has limitations. Despite the fact that visual assessment and categorization of PVWMH in "borderline" cases were discussed and agreed on between the 2 observers, the distinction from 1 category to another was not clear in some cases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In many cases, ones have to test several different feature extraction methods before finding suitable features for the task. For this study, three different sets of features from three different studies by Klöppel et al [3], Leite et al [4] and Ithapu et al [5] are used for segmenting WMH using conventional machine learning algorithms. We use the same set of features that proved relevant for this task in previous studies and are implemented in publicly available tools, such as the W2MHS toolbox.…”
Section: Feature Extraction For Conventional Machine Learning Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, we automatically extract 44 first-and second-order statistical measures out of the intensity values from 5 × 5 2D ROIs by using histogram analysis (i.e., mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis and 1%, 10%, 50%, 90% and 99% percentiles), grey-level co-occurrence matrix or GLCM (i.e., using 0 • , 45 • , 90 • and 135 • orientations and distance of 1 and 2 of neighbouring voxels), grey-level run-length matrix or GLRLM (i.e., using 0 • , 45 • , 90 • and 135 • orientations) and statistical analysis of gradient (i.e., mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis and percentage of voxels with non gradient) as in study done by Leite et al [4]. Lastly, 125 MR image's grey scale values and 1875 response values from Gabor filter (i.e., 32 filters from 4 directions and 4 magnitudes) are extracted from 5 × 5 × 5 3D ROIs and used as features as in study done by Klöppel et al [3]. The use of all these features is discussed in Section 4.1.…”
Section: Feature Extraction For Conventional Machine Learning Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations