↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative evaluation of robust skull stripping and tumor detection applied to axial MR images

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Informatics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Quantitative evaluation of robust skull stripping and tumor detection applied to axial MR images
Published in
Brain Informatics, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40708-016-0033-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmad Chaddad, Camel Tanougast

Abstract

To isolate the brain from non-brain tissues using a fully automatic method may be affected by the presence of radio frequency non-homogeneity of MR images (MRI), regional anatomy, MR sequences, and the subjects of the study. In order to automate the brain tumor (Glioblastoma) detection, we proposed a novel approach of skull stripping for axial slices derived from MRI. Then, the brain tumor was detected using multi-level threshold segmentation based on histogram analysis. Skull-stripping method, was applied by adaptive morphological operations approach. This is considered an empirical threshold by calculation of the area of brain tissue, iteratively. It was employed on the registration of non-contrast T1-weighted (T1-WI) and its corresponding fluid attenuated inversion recovery sequence. Then, we used multi-thresholding segmentation (MTS) method which is proposed by Otsu. We calculated the performance metrics based on the similarity coefficients for patients (n = 120) with tumor. The adaptive algorithm of skull stripping and MTS of segmented tumors were achieved efficient in preliminary results with 92 and 80 % of Dice similarity coefficient and 0.3 and 25.8 % of false negative rate, respectively. The adaptive skull stripping algorithm provides robust skull-stripping results, and the tumor area for medical diagnosis was determined by MTS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 9 24%
Engineering 9 24%
Psychology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,482,034
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Brain Informatics
#82
of 102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,818
of 397,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Informatics
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 102 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.