NeuroImageNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Reliability Assessment of Tissue Classification Algorithms for Multi-Center and Multi-Scanner Data
Mahsa DadariD, Simon DuchesneiD, For the CCNA Group and the CIMA-Q Group
Abstract
BackgroundGray and white matter volume difference and change are important imaging markers of pathology and disease progression in neurology and psychiatry. Such measures are usually estimated from tissue segmentation maps produced by publicly available image processing pipelines. However, the reliability of the produced segmentations when using multi-center and multi-scanner data remains understudied. Here, we assess the robustness of six publicly available tissue classification pipelines across images acquired from different MR scanners and sites. MethodsWe used T1-weighted images of a single individual, scanned in 73 sessions across 27 different sites to assess the robustness of the tissue classification tools. Variability in Dice Kappa values and tissue volumes was assessed for Atropos, BISON, Classify_Clean, FAST, FreeSurfer, and SPM12. We also estimated the sample size necessary to detect a significant 1% volume reduction based on the variability of the estimates from each method within and across scanner models. ResultsBISON had the lowest overall variability in its volumetric estimates, followed by FreeSurfer, and SPM12. All methods also had significant differences between some of their estimates across different scanner manufacturers (e.g. BISON had significantly higher GM estimates and correspondingly lower WM estimates for GE scans compared to Philips and SIEMENs), and different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels (e.g. FAST and FreeSurfer had significantly higher WM volume estimates for high versus medium and low SNR tertiles as well as correspondingly lower GM volume estimates). BISON also had the smallest sample size requirement across all scanners and tissue types, followed by FreeSurfer, and SPM12. ConclusionsOur comparisons provide a benchmark on the reliability of the publicly used tissue classification techniques and the amount of variability that can be expected when using large multi-center datasets and multi-scanner databases.
- Citations
- 24
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Field percentile
- top 19%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- BISON: Brain tISue segmentatiON pipeline using T1-weighted magnetic resonance images and a random forests classifier
Mahsa Dadar, D. Louis Collins·Magnetic Resonance in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Oct 11, 2020
- Multi-Contrast MRI Inputs Enable Self-Consistent Tissue Segmentation & Robust Perivascular Space Identification
Jeffrey L. Gunter, Gregory M. Preboske, … Clifford R. Jack·bioRxiv·Apr 7, 2026
- Performance of three freely available methods for extracting white matter hyperintensities: FreeSurfer, UBO Detector and BIANCA
Isabel Hotz, Pascal Frédéric Deschwanden, … Lutz Jäncke·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Dec 7, 2021
- TAPAS: A Thresholding Approach for Probability Map Automatic Segmentation in Multiple Sclerosis
Alessandra M. Valcarcel, John Muschelli, … Russell Taki Shinohara·NeuroImage ClinicalPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2020
- Toward Large-Scale Preclinical Neuroimaging: Quantifying Inter-Scanner Variability in Mouse Brain MRI
Moussa Shahid, Jiangyang Zhang·bioRxiv·Jun 2, 2026
- Reliability and sensitivity of two whole-brain segmentation approaches included in FreeSurfer - ASEG and SAMSEG
Donatas Sederevičius, Dídac Vidal-piñeiro A, … for the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·May 1, 2021