Keypoint Transfer for Fast Whole-Body Segmentation

We introduce an approach for image segmentation based on sparse correspondences between keypoints in testing and training images. Keypoints represent automatically identified distinctive image locations, where each keypoint correspondence suggests a transformation between images. We use these correspondences to transfer label maps of entire organs from the training images to the test image. The keypoint transfer algorithm includes three steps: (i) keypoint matching, (ii) voting-based keypoint labeling, and (iii) keypoint-based probabilistic transfer of organ segmentations. We report segmentation results for abdominal organs in whole-body CT and MRI, as well as in contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. Our method offers a speed-up of about three orders of magnitude in comparison to common multi-atlas segmentation, while achieving an accuracy that compares favorably. Moreover, keypoint transfer does not require the registration to an atlas or a training phase. Finally, the method allows for the segmentation of scans with highly variable field-of-view.Comment: Accepted for publication at IEEE Transactions on Medical Imagin

Automated detection of brain abnormalities in neonatal hypoxia ischemic injury from MR images.

We compared the efficacy of three automated brain injury detection methods, namely symmetry-integrated region growing (SIRG), hierarchical region splitting (HRS) and modified watershed segmentation (MWS) in human and animal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets for the detection of hypoxic ischemic injuries (HIIs). Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI, 1.5T) data from neonatal arterial ischemic stroke (AIS) patients, as well as T2-weighted imaging (T2WI, 11.7T, 4.7T) at seven different time-points (1, 4, 7, 10, 17, 24 and 31 days post HII) in rat-pup model of hypoxic ischemic injury were used to assess the temporal efficacy of our computational approaches. Sensitivity, specificity, and similarity were used as performance metrics based on manual ('gold standard') injury detection to quantify comparisons. When compared to the manual gold standard, automated injury location results from SIRG performed the best in 62% of the data, while 29% for HRS and 9% for MWS. Injury severity detection revealed that SIRG performed the best in 67% cases while 33% for HRS. Prior information is required by HRS and MWS, but not by SIRG. However, SIRG is sensitive to parameter-tuning, while HRS and MWS are not. Among these methods, SIRG performs the best in detecting lesion volumes; HRS is the most robust, while MWS lags behind in both respects