SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Classification of brain disease in magnetic resonance images using two-stage local feature fusion.

PLoS One · 2017-02-16

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171749PMID: 28207873

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundMany classification methods have been proposed based on magnetic resonance images. Most methods rely on measures such as volume, the cerebral cortical thickness and grey matter density. These measures are susceptible to the performance of registration and limited in representation of anatomical structure. This paper proposes a two-stage local feature fusion method, in which deformable registration is not desired and anatomical information is represented from moderate scale.MethodsKeypoints are firstly extracted from scale-space to represent anatomical structure. Then, two kinds of local features are calculated around the keypoints, one for correspondence and the other for representation. Scores are assigned for keypoints to quantify their effect in classification. The sum of scores for all effective keypoints is used to determine which group the test subject belongs to.ResultsWe apply this method to magnetic resonance images of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. The advantage of local feature in correspondence and representation contributes to the final classification. With the help of local feature (Scale Invariant Feature Transform, SIFT) in correspondence, the performance becomes better. Local feature (Histogram of Oriented Gradient, HOG) extracted from 16×16 cell block obtains better results compared with 4×4 and 8×8 cell block.DiscussionThis paper presents a method which combines the effect of SIFT descriptor in correspondence and the representation ability of HOG descriptor in anatomical structure. This method has the potential in distinguishing patients with brain disease from controls.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.