Nonlinear Markov Random Fields Learned via Backpropagation

by   Mikael Brudfors, et al.

Although convolutional neural networks (CNNs) currently dominate competitions on image segmentation, for neuroimaging analysis tasks, more classical generative approaches based on mixture models are still used in practice to parcellate brains. To bridge the gap between the two, in this paper we propose a marriage between a probabilistic generative model, which has been shown to be robust to variability among magnetic resonance (MR) images acquired via different imaging protocols, and a CNN. The link is in the prior distribution over the unknown tissue classes, which are classically modelled using a Markov random field. In this work we model the interactions among neighbouring pixels by a type of recurrent CNN, which can encode more complex spatial interactions. We validate our proposed model on publicly available MR data, from different centres, and show that it generalises across imaging protocols. This result demonstrates a successful and principled inclusion of a CNN in a generative model, which in turn could be adapted by any probabilistic generative approach for image segmentation.



page 2

page 9


A Lifelong Learning Approach to Brain MR Segmentation Across Scanners and Protocols

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have shown promising results on sev...

Markov Random Field Segmentation of Brain MR Images

We describe a fully-automatic 3D-segmentation technique for brain MR ima...

Deep Gaussian Markov random fields

Gaussian Markov random fields (GMRFs) are probabilistic graphical models...

Combining Markov Random Fields and Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Synthesis

This paper studies a combination of generative Markov random field (MRF)...

An Unsupervised Ensemble-based Markov Random Field Approach to Microscope Cell Image Segmentation

In this paper, we propose an approach to the unsupervised segmentation o...

Whole-brain substitute CT generation using Markov random field mixture models

Computed tomography (CT) equivalent information is needed for attenuatio...
This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

Image segmentation is the process of assigning one of several categorical labels to each pixel of an image, which is a fundamental step in many medical image analyses. Until recently, some of the most accurate segmentation methods were based on probabilistic mixture models [1]

. These models define a probability distribution over an observed image (

), conditioned on unknown class labels () and parameters (). Assuming a prior distribution over unknown variables, Bayes rule is used to form a posterior distribution:


which can be evaluated or approximated. Wells III et al. [2]

introduced these types of models for brain segmentation from magnetic resonance (MR) images. By assuming that the log-transformed image intensities followed a normal distribution in the likelihood term

, they segmented the brain into three classes: grey matter (GM), white matter (WM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

As generative models require the data-generating process to be defined, they can be extended to more complex joint distributions than in

[2], allowing for segmentation methods robust to, e.g., slice thickness, MR contrast, field strength and scanner variability. Many of today’s most widely used neuroimaging analysis software, such as SPM [3], FSL [4] and FreeSurfer [5], rely on these kinds of models, and have been shown to reliably segment a wide variety of MR data [6, 7].

However, recent advances in convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have provided a new method for very accurate (and fast) image segmentation [8], circumventing the need to define and invert a potentially complex generative model. Discriminative CNNs learn a function that maps an input (e.g., an MRI) to an output (e.g.

, a segmentation) from training data, where the output is known. They typically contain many layers, which sequentially apply convolutions, pooling and nonlinear activation functions to the input data. Their parameters are optimised by propagating gradients backwards through the network (

i.e., backpropagation). For medical imaging, the U-net architecture [9] is the most popular and now forms the basis for most top performing entries in various medical imaging challenges aimed at segmenting, e.g., tumours, the whole brain or white matter,, The more classical segmentation frameworks based on probabilistic models seem to have met their match.

Figure 1: T1-weighted MR images from two different, publicly available, datasets: MICCAI2012 and MRBrainS18 (on which we evaluate our method). It is evident that learning from one of these populations, and subsequently testing on the other is very challenging. The intensities are different by an order of magnitude, the bias is stronger in the MRBrainS18 subject. Additionally, age related change and pathology can be clearly seen, such as differences in ventricle size and white matter hyper-intensities, which further complicates the learning problem.

Challenges on medical image segmentation can be seen as lab experiments and – as with new medical therapies – there is a large gap to get from bench to bedside. CNNs excel in this context, factorising the commonalities in an image population of training data, which generalise to new data from the same population. They can struggle, however, when faced with new data that contain unseen features [10], e.g., a different contrast (Fig. 1). This scenario usually requires the model being trained anew, on that unseen image contrast. In fact, even without considering inter-individual variability (age, brain shape, pathology, etc), a CNN-based segmentation software has yet to be presented that is agnostic to the great variability in MR data [11]. Lack of such software is largely due to the limited amount of labelled data available in medical imaging, which is a clear obstacle to their generalisability. Some methods have been developed to address this problem, e.g., intensity normalisation [12]

, transfer learning

[13] and batch normalisation [14]. Still, none of these methods are yet general enough to solve the task of segmenting across scanners and protocols. Recently, approaches based on realistic data augmentation have shown promising results [15, 16].

In this paper, we propose an approach to bridge between the classical, but robust, generative segmentation models and more recent CNN based methods. The link is in the prior term of (1), where we encode the unknown tissue distribution as drawn from a Markov random field (MRF). Using an MRF is in itself nothing new; they have been used successfully for decades in order to introduce spatial dependencies into generative segmentation models [17, 18], relaxing the independent voxels assumption. Here however, we instead model and learn the interactions among neighbouring pixels by a type of CNN. This allows us to parametrise the MRF by a more complex mathematical function than in the regular linear case, as well as cover a larger neighbourhood than a second-order one. The idea is that learning at the tissue level may generalise better than learning directly from the image intensities. We validate our approach on two publicly available datasets, acquired in different centres, and show favourable results when applying the model trained on one of these datasets to the other.

Related Work:

Rather than reviewing the use of MRFs in image segmentation we will here briefly discuss two fairly recent additions to the computer vision field

[19, 20], because they are closely related to the method we present in the subsequent section. The idea of both these papers is to cast the application and learning of a conditional random field (CRF) into a CNN framework. A CRF is a statistical modeling method that directly defines the posterior distribution in (1). To compute the CRF both papers apply a mean-field approximation, which they implement in the form of a CNN.

In contrast to the works described above, we are interested in defining the full generative model, whilst keeping the separation between likelihood and prior in (1). Modelling these two components separately allows us to include expert knowledge and image-intensity independent prior information over the segmentation labels. It also integrates easily with existing mixture-model-based approaches. Furthermore, modelling the prior as an MRF, without data-dependency in the neighbourhood model, may help in generalising among different image populations. Finally, our model allows an arbitrarily complex MRF distribution to be defined, including, e.g., nonlinearities.

2 Methods

In this section we use the generative model defined by (1) to encode an MRF over the unknown labels. We show that computing this MRF term is analogous to the mathematical operations performed by a CNN. We then go on to formulate learning the MRF clique potentials as the training of a CNN. This allows us to introduce nonlinearities and increasing complexity in the MRF neighbourhood.

2.0.1 Generative Model:

The posterior in (1

) allows us to estimate the unknown tissue labels. For simplicity, we will from now on assume that all parameters (

) are known; we therefore only want to infer the posterior distribution over categorical labels , where are the number of pixels in the image and are the number of classes, conditioned on an observed image , where are the number of channels. Modelling multi-channel images allows the use of all acquired MR contrasts of the same subject. In practice, unknown parameters of, e.g., class-wise intensity distributions would need inferring too. Variational Bayesian (VB) inference, along with a well-chosen mean-field approximation, allows any such model to fit within the presented framework [21].

Making use of the product rule, we may define the joint model likelihood as the product of a data likelihood and a prior . In a mixture model, it is assumed that once labels are known, intensities are independent across pixels and all pixels with the same label are sampled from the same distribution . This can be written as:


A common prior distribution for labels in a mixture model is the categorical distribution, which can be stationary () or non-stationary () [22]. However, both these distributions assume conditional independence between pixels. MRFs can be introduced to model dependencies between pixels in a relatively tractable way by assuming that interactions are restricted to a finite neighbourhood:


where defines pixels whose cliques contain . We make the common assumption that this neighbourhood is stationary, meaning that it is defined by relative positions with respect to : . Here, we assume that this conditional likelihood factorises over the neighbours and that each factor is a categorical distribution:


Mean-field inference:

Despite the use of a relatively simple interaction model, the posterior distribution over labels is intractable. Therefore, our approach is to search for an approximate posterior distribution that factorises across voxels:


We use VB inference [21] to iteratively find the approximate posterior

that minimises its Kullback-Leibler divergence with the true posterior distribution. Let us assume a current approximate posterior distribution

; each voxel follows a categorical distribution parameterised by , which is often called a responsibility. VB then gives us the optimal updated distribution for factor by taking the expected value of the joint model log-likelihood, with respect to all other variables:


This distribution is again categorical with parameters:


Implementation as a CNN:

Under VB assumptions, posterior distributions should be updated one at a time, in turn. Taking advantage of the limited support of the neighbourhood, an efficient update scheme can be implemented by updating at once all pixels that do not share a neighbourhood222When contains four second-order neighbours, this corresponds to a checkerboard update scheme.. Another scheme can be to update all pixels at once based on the previous state of the entire field. Drawing a parallel with linear systems, this is comparable to Jacobi’s method, while updating in turn is comparable to the Gauss-Siedel method. In the Jacobi case, updating the labels’ expected values can be implemented as a convolution, an addition and a softmax operation; three basic layers of CNNs:


The matrix contains the conditional log-likelihood terms (). The convolution weights are equal to the log of the MRF weights () and, very importantly, their centre is always zero. We call such filters MRF filters, and the combination of softmaxing and convolving an MRF layer. These weights are parameters of the approximate posterior distribution . Note that multiple mean-field updates can be implemented by making the MRF layer recurrent, where the output is also the input [19].

Now, let us assume that we have a set of true segmentations , along with a set of approximate distributions with parameters . One may want to know the MRF parameters that make the new posterior estimate with parameters the most likely to have generated the true segmentations. This reduces to the optimisation problem:


which is a maximum-likelihood (ML), or risk-minimisation, problem. Note that this objective function is the negative of what is commonly referred to as the categorical cross-entropy loss function in machine-learning. If the optimisation is performed by computing gradients from a subset of random samples, this is equivalent to optimising a CNN, with only one layer, by stochastic gradient descent.

Post-processing MRFs:

MRFs are sometimes used to post-process segmentations, rather than as an explicit prior in a generative model. In this case, the conditional data term is not known, and the objective is slightly different: approximating a factorised label distribution that resembles the prior distribution . This can be written as finding such distribution that minimises the Kullback-Leibler divergence with the prior :


Again, assuming all other factors fixed with , the optimal distribution for factor is obtained by taking the expected value of the prior log-likelihood:


which is equivalent to dropping the conditional term in the generative case. Equation (8) is then written as .

Nonlinear MRF:

The conditional prior distribution that defines an MRF can, in theory, be any strictly positive probability distribution. However, in practice, they are usually restricted to simple log-linear functions, which are easy to implement and efficient to compute. On the other hand, deep neural networks allow highly nonlinear functions to be implemented and computed efficiently. Therefore, we propose a more complex layer based on multiple MRF filters and nonlinearities, that implements a nonlinear MRF density. To ensure that we implement a conditional probability, a constraint is that the input value of a voxel may not be used to compute its posterior density. Therefore, the first layer consists MRF filters that do not have a central weight, and subsequent layers are of size one to avoid reintroducing the centre value by deconvolution. We thus propose the first layer to be an MRF filter , where is the number of output features. Setting allows the information to be decoupled into more than the initial

classes and may help to capture more complex interactions. This first convolutional layer is followed by a ReLU activation function, 1D convolutions that keep the number of features untouched, and another ReLU activation function. This allows features to be combined together. A final 1D linear layer is used to recombine the information into

classes, followed by a softmax. Fig. 2 shows our proposed architecture.

Figure 2: An illustration of the architecture of our MRF CNN. Outlined are the operations performed for learning to predict the centre of a segmented pixel. The nonlinearities are introduced by the ReLU activations. By setting the number of MRF layers to

and keeping only the final softmax layer, the linear MRF model is obtained. The convolution kernel applied by the MRF filter is shown left of the segmentations, with its centre constrained to be zero.

Implementation and training:

In this work we set the number of MRF layers to , we use three by three convolutions and leaky ReLU activation functions with

. We optimise the CNN using the Adam optimiser. To reduce overfitting, we augment the data in two ways: (1) by simple left-right reflection; and (2), by sampling warps from anatomically feasible affine transformations, followed by nearest neighbour interpolation. Realistic affine transformations can be sampled by parametrising them by their 12 parameter Lie group (from which the transformation matrix can be constructed via an exponential mapping

[23]) and then learning their mean and covariance from a large number of subjects’ image headers.

3 Validation

This section aims to answer a series of questions: (1) does applying a linear MRF trained by backpropagation to the output segmentations of a generative model improve the segmentation accuracy? (2) does complexifying the MRF distribution using numerous filters and nonlinearities improve the segmentation accuracy compared to a linear MRF? (3) do the learnt weights generalise to new data from an entirely different dataset?

3.0.1 Datasets and preprocessing:

Our validation was performed on axial 2D slices extracted from two publicly available,

  • MICCAI2012: T1-weighted MR scans of 30 subjects aged 18 to 96 years, (mean: 34, median: 25). The scans were manually segmented into 136 anatomical regions by Neuromorphometrics Inc. for the MICCAI 2012 challenge on multi-atlas segmentation.

  • MRBrainS18: Multi-sequence (T1-weighted, T1-weighted inversion recovery and T2-FLAIR) MR scans of seven subjects, manually segmented into ten anatomical regions. Some subjects have pathology and they are all older than 50 years. All scans were labelled by the same neuroanatomist.

Within each dataset, all subjects were scanned on the same scanner and with the same sequences, whilst between datasets, the scanners and sequences differ (Fig. 1). Both datasets have multiple labelled brain structures, such as cortical GM, cerebellum, ventricles, etc. We combined these so as to obtain the same three labels for each subject: GM, WM and OTHER (). These labels were used as targets when training our model.

All T1-weighted MR scans were segmented with the algorithm implemented in the SPM12, which is based on the generative model described in [3]. In this model, the distribution over categorical labels is independent across voxels, non-stationary, and encoded by a probabilistic atlas deformed towards each subject. The algorithm generates soft segmentations, that is, parameters of the posterior categorical distribution over labels. We pulled the GM, WM and OTHER classes from these segmentations. Fig. 3 shows the T1-weighted image of one subject from each dataset, with its corresponding target labels and SPM12 segmentations555Besides disabling the final MRF clean-up, we used the default parameters of SPM12..

Figure 3: Example training data and results. From left to right: T1-weighted MR image with target labels, SPM GM and WM segmentations, results of applying the linear MRF model to the SPM segmentations, results of applying the nonlinear MRF model to the SPM segmentations. Below each tissue class are the corresponding Dice scores, computed with the target labels as reference.

3.0.2 Model training and evaluation:

We trained two different models: a regular, second-order MRF (Lin); and a second-order nonlinear MRF (Net). Fig. 2 explains the differences in architecture between the two. For each subject and each class, we computed the Dice score of the ML labels obtained using SPM12 and those obtained after application of the linear MRF and the nonlinear MRF. Statistical significance of the observed changes was tested using two-sided Welch’s t-tests between paired measures. Multiple comparisons were accounted for by applying the Bonferroni correction.

We first evaluated the learning abilities of the networks. To this end, we performed a 10-fold cross validation of the MICCAI2012 dataset, where groups of three images were tested using a model trained on the remaining 27 images. This yielded Dice scores for the entire MICCAI2012 dataset, which are shown in Fig. (a)a. Next, we evaluated the generalisability of the networks, that is, what kind of performances are obtained when the models are tested on images from an entirely new dataset, with different imaging features. We randomly selected models trained on one of the MICCAI2012 folds and applied them to the images from the MRBrainS18 dataset. The results are shown in Fig. (b)b.

Figure 6: Validation of our model on the MICCAI2012 (a) and MRBrainS18 (b) datasets. Dice scores were computed for known labels (GM and WM) and: SPM12 segmentations (SPM); and linear (Lin) and nonlinear (Net) 8-neighbour MRF applied to the SPM12 segmentations. Asterisks indicate statistical significance of paired t-tests after Bonferroni correction: 0.05 (), 0.01 (), 0.001 () & 0.0001 ().

3.0.3 Results:

The 10-fold cross validation results in Fig. (a)a show that the increase in Dice scores for both GM and WM is statistically significant after applying either of our two MRF CNN models. (Fig. 3 shows the results for a randomly selected MICCAI2012 subject). With a mean Dice of for SPM12, and and after applying the linear and nonlinear MRF, respectively. The results imply that the classical generative approach of SPM12, which currently ranks in the top 50 on the MRBrainS13 challenge, could move up quite a few positions by application of our proposed model trained on the challenge data. As can be seen in Fig. (a)a, for one of the subjects, all models perform substantially worse. On closer inspection, this subject suffers from major white matter hyper-intensities. This abnormality is currently not handled well by the MRF CNN models, which obtain lower Dice scores than the initial SPM12 segmentations.

Fig. (b)b shows results when applying the models to data from a different centre, not part of the training data (Fig. 3 shows the results for a randomly selected MRBrainS18 subject). Mean Dice scores are for SPM12, and and after application of the linear and nonlinear MRF, respectively. Application of the MRF improves both GM and WM segmentations. The nonlinear MRF performs slightly worse than the linear version. This result could be due to the nonlinear model – which possesses many more parameters than the linear model – overfitting to the training subjects of MICCAI2012. Additionally, the nonlinear MRF may struggle with the MRBrainS18 subjects that have pathology (e.g. white matter hyperintensities). Still, the fact that Dice scores improve when applying the model to new data shows that we can successfully improve segmenting images from different MR imaging protocols.

4 Discussion

In this paper, we introduced an image segmentation method that combines the robustness of a well-tuned generative model with some of the outstanding learning capability of a CNN. The CNN encodes an MRF in the prior term over the unknown labels. We evaluated the method on annotated MR images and showed that a trained model can be deployed on an unseen image population, with very different characteristics from the training population. We hope that the idea presented in this paper introduces to the medical imaging community a principled way of bringing together probabilistic modelling and deep learning.

In medical image analysis – where labelled training data is sparse and images can vary widely – generalisability across different image populations is one of the most important properties of learning-based methods. However, achieving this generalisability is made difficult by the limited amount of annotated data; the datasets we used in this paper contained, in total, only 37 subjects. This issue may be addressed by realistic, nonlinear data augmentation, which is able to capture changes due to ageing and disease. Learning this variability in shape from a large and diverse population could be a step in that direction [24]. On the other hand – manual segmentations suffer from both intra- and inter-operator variability, is it clinically meaningful to learn from these very imperfect annotations? Could automatic segmentations prove more anatomically informative than manual ones (c.f., Fig. 3)? Semi-supervised techniques, leveraging both labelled and unlabelled data, could be an option for making our method less dependent on annotations (see e.g., [25]).

We chose the architecture of our proposed MRF CNN with the idea of keeping the number of parameters low (to reduce overfitting), while still introducing a more complex neighbourhood than in regular MRF models. However, we did not extensively investigate different architectures, e.g., activation functions and filter size. There is therefore a possibility of improved performance by design changes to the network. Such a change could be to hierarchically apply MRF filters of decreasing size, which could increase neighbourhood size without increased overfitting. Another potentially interesting idea would be to ‘plug in’ the MRF filters at the end of a segmentation network, such as a U-net, emulating MRF post-processing inside the network. Finally, we intend to integrate our model into a generative segmentation framework and then validate its performance by comparing it to other existing segmentation software.


JA was funded by the EU Human Brain Project’s Grant Agreement No 785907 (SGA2). YB was funded by the MRC and Spinal Research Charity through the ERA-NET Neuron joint call (MR/R000050/1).


  • [1] F. Klauschen, A. Goldman, V. Barra, A. Meyer-Lindenberg, and A. Lundervold, “Evaluation of automated brain MR image segmentation and volumetry methods,” Hum Brain Mapp, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1310–1327, 2009.
  • [2] W. M. Wells III, W. E. L. Grimson, R. Kikinis, and F. A. Jolesz, “Adaptive segmentation of MRI data,” IEEE Trans Med Imag, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 429–442, 1996.
  • [3] J. Ashburner and K. J. Friston, “Unified segmentation,” Neuroimage, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 839–851, 2005.
  • [4]

    Y. Zhang, M. Brady, and S. Smith, “Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm,”

    IEEE Trans Med Imag, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 45–57, 2001.
  • [5] B. Fischl, D. H. Salat, A. J. Van Der Kouwe, N. Makris, F. Ségonne, B. T. Quinn, and A. M. Dale, “Sequence-independent segmentation of magnetic resonance images,” Neuroimage, vol. 23, pp. S69–S84, 2004.
  • [6] K. Kazemi and N. Noorizadeh, “Quantitative comparison of SPM, FSL, and brainsuite for brain MR image segmentation,” J Biomed Phys Eng, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 13, 2014.
  • [7] R. Heinen, W. H. Bouvy, A. M. Mendrik, M. A. Viergever, G. J. Biessels, and J. De Bresser, “Robustness of automated methods for brain volume measurements across different MRI field strengths,” PloS one, vol. 11, no. 10, p. e0165719, 2016.
  • [8] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis, pp. 3431–3440, 2015.
  • [9] O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in MICCAI, pp. 234–241, Springer, 2015.
  • [10] J. Dolz, C. Desrosiers, and I. B. Ayed, “3D fully convolutional networks for subcortical segmentation in MRI: A large-scale study,” NeuroImage, 2017.
  • [11] Z. Akkus, A. Galimzianova, A. Hoogi, D. L. Rubin, and B. J. Erickson, “Deep learning for brain MRI segmentation: state of the art and future directions,” J Digit Imag, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 449–459, 2017.
  • [12] X. Han and B. Fischl, “Atlas renormalization for improved brain MR image segmentation across scanner platforms,” IEEE Trans Med Imag, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 479–486, 2007.
  • [13] A. Van Opbroek, M. A. Ikram, M. W. Vernooij, and M. De Bruijne, “Transfer learning improves supervised image segmentation across imaging protocols,” IEEE Trans Med Imag, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1018–1030, 2015.
  • [14] N. Karani, K. Chaitanya, C. Baumgartner, and E. Konukoglu, “A Lifelong Learning Approach to Brain MR Segmentation Across Scanners and Protocols,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10170, 2018.
  • [15] A. Jog and B. Fischl, “Pulse sequence resilient fast brain segmentation,” in MICCAI, pp. 654–662, Springer, 2018.
  • [16] A. Zhao, G. Balakrishnan, F. Durand, J. V. Guttag, and A. V. Dalca, “Data augmentation using learned transforms for one-shot medical image segmentation,” arXiv:1902.09383, 2019.
  • [17] K. Van Leemput, F. Maes, D. Vandermeulen, and P. Suetens, “Automated model-based tissue classification of MR images of the brain,” IEEE Trans Med Imag, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 897–908, 1999.
  • [18] M. Agn, O. Puonti, P. M. af Rosenschöld, I. Law, and K. Van Leemput, “Brain tumor segmentation using a generative model with an RBM prior on tumor shape,” in BrainLes MICCAI workshop, pp. 168–180, Springer, 2015.
  • [19]

    S. Zheng, S. Jayasumana, B. Romera-Paredes, V. Vineet, Z. Su, D. Du, C. Huang, and P. H. Torr, “Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks,” in

    Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis, pp. 1529–1537, 2015.
  • [20] A. G. Schwing and R. Urtasun, “Fully connected deep structured networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02351, 2015.
  • [21] C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer, 2006.
  • [22] J. Ashburner and K. Friston, “Multimodal image coregistration and partitioning—a unified framework,” Neuroimage, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 209–217, 1997.
  • [23] J. Ashburner and G. R. Ridgway, “Symmetric diffeomorphic modeling of longitudinal structural MRI,” Front Neurosci, vol. 6, p. 197, 2013.
  • [24] Y. Balbastre, M. Brudfors, K. Bronik, and J. Ashburner, “Diffeomorphic Brain Shape Modelling Using Gauss-Newton Optimisation,” in MICCAI, pp. 862–870, Springer International Publishing, 2018.
  • [25] A. G. Roy, S. Conjeti, N. Navab, and C. Wachinger, “QuickNAT: A fully convolutional network for quick and accurate segmentation of neuroanatomy,” NeuroImage, 2018.