Imputation Strategy for Reliable Regional MRI Morphological Measurements

9Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Regional morphological analysis represents a crucial step in most neuroimaging studies. Results from brain segmentation techniques are intrinsically prone to certain degrees of variability, mainly as results of suboptimal segmentation. To reduce this inherent variability, the errors are often identified through visual inspection and then corrected (semi)manually. Identification and correction of incorrect segmentation could be very expensive for large-scale studies. While identification of the incorrect results can be done relatively fast even with manual inspection, the correction step is extremely time-consuming, as it requires training staff to perform laborious manual corrections. Here we frame the correction phase of this problem as a missing data problem. Instead of manually adjusting the segmentation outputs, our computational approach aims to derive accurate morphological measures by machine learning imputation. Data imputation techniques may be used to replace missing or incorrect region average values with carefully chosen imputed values, all of which are computed based on other available multivariate information. We examined our approach of correcting segmentation outputs on a cohort of 970 subjects, which were undergone an extensive, time-consuming, manual post-segmentation correction. A random forest imputation technique recovered the gold standard results with a significant accuracy (r = 0.93, p < 0.0001; when 30% of the segmentations were considered incorrect in a non-random fashion). The random forest technique proved to be most effective for big data studies (N > 250).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sta. Cruz, S., Dinov, I. D., Herting, M. M., González-Zacarías, C., Kim, H., Toga, A. W., & Sepehrband, F. (2020). Imputation Strategy for Reliable Regional MRI Morphological Measurements. Neuroinformatics, 18(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-019-09426-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free