-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Lesion segmentation protocol #9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 11 commits
f0b3b34
973c5b2
6d01e30
fddd8e3
2e7d7fd
3bbcc6a
ffa1b0a
61291c7
fe015f5
7e18554
b98087b
77425fb
6e4a30b
7e0eac3
359f051
8928382
f9a370b
11ac1d6
b525c0c
5f11e4f
2982982
e403321
be19641
a021996
657b9bb
63f305c
13ca692
888513d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ | ||||||
| # Lesion segmentation protocol: | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| The following details the protocol for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) lesion segmentation in the spinal cord. | ||||||
| Imaging the spinal cord is often essential to confirm the diagnosis of MS. That is because the lesions of the spinal cord are included in the McDonald diagnostic criteria, which considers dissemination in space and in time [(Thompson et al. 2018)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29275977/). While the MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS working group recommends to use at least two sagittal images for MS diagnosis, still, axial imaging is mentioned as optional in international imaging guidelines [(Wattjes et al. 2021)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34139157/). | ||||||
| For detecting MS lesions in the spinal cord, two main contrasts emerge: PSIR and STIR contrasts. New studies [(Peters et al. 2024)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38289376/)[(Fechner et al. 2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30679225/) showed that using PSIR contrasts improved MS lesion detection in the spinal cord. [(Fechner et al. 2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30679225/) showed that the PSIR contrast showed a higher signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio compared to the STIR contrast. | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe my suggestion is not up-to-date, but I have doubts/questions abouts STIR sequences being frequently used for assessing MS lesions, at least in standard/basics protocols (even if mentioned in the picture showing example of of clinically used sequences for MS). From my understanding, the most useful sequence for detecting MS lesions in clinical practice is proton density (PD), but probably that changes from sites/radiologists perspective.
Suggested change
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Criteria to segment MS lesions in the spinal cord: | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| - Do not segment lesions in images with too many artifacts (such as this [example](https://github.com/ivadomed/canproco/issues/53#issue-1938136790)). Preferably, add the image to the exclude file so that it isn’t used for model training… | ||||||
| - When segmenting lesions on thick slices, always look at the above/below slices to build the volume of the lesion (this can minimize partial volume effect). | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
| - Do not segment lesions above the first vertebrae (because here we focus only on MS lesions in the spinal cord). | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
| - For lesions segmentations which you are not 100% sure, flag the subject and report it for external validation of the segmentation. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## How to manually segment lesions: | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| - MS spinal cord lesions can be manually corrected from the prediction of a segmentation model or manually segmented from scratch. In the first case, make sure to build the json file associated with the segmentation prediction such as the following : | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| ```json | ||||||
| { | ||||||
| "GeneratedBy": [ | ||||||
| { | ||||||
| "Name": "2D nnUNet model model_ms_seg_sc-lesion_regionBased.zip", | ||||||
| "Version": "https://github.com/ivadomed/canproco/releases/tag/r20240125", | ||||||
| "Date": "2024-01-26" | ||||||
| } | ||||||
| ] | ||||||
| } | ||||||
| ``` | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| - For manual correction of the segmentation file use the manual-correction (https://github.com/spinalcordtoolbox/manual-correction) repository. The command can be inspired from this: | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| ```console | ||||||
| python manual_correction.py -path-img ~/data/canproco -config ~/config_seg.yml -path-label ~/data/canproco/derivatives/labels -suffix-files-lesion _lesion-manual -fsleyes-dr="-40,70" | ||||||
| ``` | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| - A Quality Control (QC) report should be produced using SCT, and added to a Github issue for further validation by other investigators. Using SCT, you can review lesion segmentation in the axial or sagittal plane : | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| ```console | ||||||
| sct_qc -i {image_file} -d {lesion_seg_file} -s {sc_seg_file} -p sct_deepseg_lesion -plane {sagittal, axial} -qc {canproco_qc_folder} | ||||||
| ``` | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| - If you are not sure of a subject, it should be flagged on Github for a more open discussion: here are some examples [(1)](https://github.com/ivadomed/ms-lesion-agnostic/issues/4#issuecomment-1947326493) and [(2)](https://github.com/ivadomed/ms-lesion-agnostic/issues/4#issuecomment-1947338624) | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Step 1: Get familiar with FSLeyes and SCT: | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
| It is common practice to use FSLeyes at NeuroPoly for visual inspection of MRI images and manual segmentation of MS lesions. Therefore, naturally, the first step of the lesion segmentation process is to complete the FSLeyes tutorial ([FSLeyes documentation](https://open.win.ox.ac.uk/pages/fsl/fsleyes/fsleyes/userdoc/) and [video tutorial](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIQIswOrUH69qFMNg8KYkEGkvCNEwlnfT)). Trainees are encouraged to learn keyboard shortcuts (ctrl+F to toggle an image, shift+↑ to scroll through volumes, ...). | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Furthermore, it is recommended to get familiar with SCT for creating QCs and for manual correction ([SCT tutorial](https://spinalcordtoolbox.com/user_section/tutorials.html)). | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## More details: | ||||||
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
| The following section details the different types of errors which occur during lesion segmentation. It is based on the condensed Nascimento Taxonomy: | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| <img width="522" alt="nascimento_taxonomy" src="https://github.com/ivadomed/canproco/assets/67429280/36d9e45e-4a36-40f0-a4f5-e5f3ea3f06a0"> | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Sources | ||||||
| This lesion segmentation protocol was inspired from these ressources: | ||||||
| - deSouza NM, van der Lugt A, Deroose CM, et al. Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC. Insights Imaging. 2022;13(1):159. Published 2022 Oct 4. doi:10.1186/s13244-022-01287-4 : [link](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36194301/) | ||||||
| - Lo BP, Donnelly MR, Barisano G, Liew SL. A standardized protocol for manually segmenting stroke lesions on high-resolution T1-weighted MR images. Front Neuroimaging. 2023;1:1098604. Published 2023 Jan 10. doi:10.3389/fnimg.2022.1098604 : [link](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37555152/) | ||||||
|
|
||||||

Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.