A comparison of supervised machine learning algorithms and feature vectors for MS lesion segmentation using multimodal structural MRI.

PLoS One 2014 29;9(4):e95753. Epub 2014 Apr 29.

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Machine learning is a popular method for mining and analyzing large collections of medical data. We focus on a particular problem from medical research, supervised multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion segmentation in structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We examine the extent to which the choice of machine learning or classification algorithm and feature extraction function impacts the performance of lesion segmentation methods. As quantitative measures derived from structural MRI are important clinical tools for research into the pathophysiology and natural history of MS, the development of automated lesion segmentation methods is an active research field. Yet, little is known about what drives performance of these methods. We evaluate the performance of automated MS lesion segmentation methods, which consist of a supervised classification algorithm composed with a feature extraction function. These feature extraction functions act on the observed T1-weighted (T1-w), T2-weighted (T2-w) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI voxel intensities. Each MRI study has a manual lesion segmentation that we use to train and validate the supervised classification algorithms. Our main finding is that the differences in predictive performance are due more to differences in the feature vectors, rather than the machine learning or classification algorithms. Features that incorporate information from neighboring voxels in the brain were found to increase performance substantially. For lesion segmentation, we conclude that it is better to use simple, interpretable, and fast algorithms, such as logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and quadratic discriminant analysis, and to develop the features to improve performance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095753PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4004572PMC
January 2015
19 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lesion segmentation
28
machine learning
16
segmentation methods
12
feature extraction
12
classification algorithms
8
learning classification
8
performance lesion
8
structural mri
8
feature vectors
8
supervised classification
8
classification algorithm
8
extraction function
8
automated lesion
8
discriminant analysis
8
segmentation
7
lesion
7
performance
6
feature
5
mri
5
functions observed
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)
Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective
I Kononenko et al.
Artificial Intelligence in medicine 2001
Machine learning in bioinformatics
P Larra├▒aga et al.
Briefings in bioinformatics 2006
Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines
J Simon et al.
American Journal of Neuroradiology 2006
Classifier technology and the illusion of progress
DJ Hand et al.
Statistical Science 2006

Similar Publications