Journals / Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3

Brain Extraction from Magnetic Resonance Images Using UNet modified with Residual and Dense Layers

Pages
144–151
Publication Date
2023-09-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The performance of our proposed model, evaluated using test data, is found to be comparable to the results obtained in the literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main goal of brain extraction is to separate the brain from non-brain parts, which enables accurate detection or classification of abnormalities within the brain region.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The precise brain extraction process significantly influences the quality of successive neuroimaging analyses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The performance of our proposed model, evaluated using test data, is found to be comparable to the results obtained in the literature.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Brain extraction · Skull stripping · Deep learning

Abstract

The main goal of brain extraction is to separate the brain from non-brain parts, which enables accurate detection or classification of abnormalities within the brain region. The precise brain extraction process significantly influences the quality of successive neuroimaging analyses. Brain extraction is a challenging task mainly due to the similarity of intensity values between brain and non-brain structure. In this study, a UNet model improved with ResNet50 or DenseNet121 feature extraction layers was proposed for brain extraction from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) images. Three publicly available datasets (IBSR, NFBS and CC-359) were used for training the deep learning models. The findings of a comparison between different feature extraction layer types added to UNet shows that residual connections taken from ResNet50 is more successful across all datasets. The ResNet50 connections proved effective in enhancing the distinction of weak but significant gradient values in brain boundary regions. In addition, the best results were obtained for CC-359. The improvement achieved with CC-359 can be attributed to its larger number of samples with more slices, indicating that the model learned better. The performance of our proposed model, evaluated using test data, is found to be comparable to the results obtained in the literature.

🔖

Cite This Article

GURKAHRAMAN, K., DAŞGIN, Ç. (2023). Brain Extraction from Magnetic Resonance Images Using UNet modified with Residual and Dense Layers. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3, 144–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/963454

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Kalavathi P, Prasath VS. Methods on skull stripping of MRI head scan images-a review. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2016; 29: 365-379
  2. Isensee F, Schell M, Pflueger I, Brugnara G, Bonekamp D, Neuberger U, et al. Automated brain extraction of multisequence MRI using artificial neural networks. Human Brain Mapping. 2019; 40(17): 4952-4964, 2019
  3. Bhat SY, Naqshbandi A, Abulaish M. Skull stripping on multimodal brain MRI scans using thresholding and morphology. The Imaging Science Journal, 2023; 1-13
  4. Karakis R, Gurkahraman K, Mitsis GD, Boudrias MH. Deep learning prediction of motor performance in stroke individuals using neuroimaging data. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2023; 141: article number 104357
  5. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Human Brain Mapping. 2002; 17: 143-155
  6. Souza R, Lucena O, Garrafa J, Gobbi D, Saluzzi M, Appenzeller S, et al. An open, multi-vendor, multi-field-strength brain MR dataset and analysis of publicly available skull stripping methods agreement. NeuroImage. 2018; 170: 482-494
  7. Jenkinson M, Pechaud M, Smith S. BET2 - MR-based estimation of brain, skull and scalp surfaces. Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (FMRIB), Oxford, 2005
  8. Shattuck DW, Sandor-Leahy SR, Schaper KA, Rottenberg DA, Leahy RM. Magnetic resonance image tissue classification using a partial volume model. NeuroImage, 2001; 13 (5): 856-876
  9. Eskildsen SF, Coupe P, Fonov V, Manjon JV, Leung KK, Guizard N, et al. BEaST: brain extraction based on Non-local segmentation technique. NeuroImage. 2012; 59 (3): 2362-2373
  10. Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, Setio AAA, Ciompi F, Ghafoorian M., et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical Image Analysis. 2017; 42: 60-88
  11. Yapici M, Karakis R, Gurkahraman K. Improving Brain Tumor Classification with Deep Learning Using Synthetic Data. Computers, Materials and Continua. 2023; 74 (3): 5049-5067
  12. Gurkahraman K, Karakis R. Brain tumors classification with deep learning using data augmentation. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University. 2021; 36 (2): 997-1011
  13. Rehman HZU, Hwang H, Lee S. Conventional and deep learning methods for skull stripping in brain MRI. Applied Sciences. vol. 10, no. 5, article number 1773, 2020
  14. Kleesiek J, Urban G, Hubert A, Schwarz D, Maier-Hein K, Bendszus M, et al. Deep MRI brain extraction: A 3D convolutional neural network for skull stripping.