Skip to content
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

Lesion segmentation protocol #9

Draft
wants to merge 28 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
28 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
f0b3b34
initialised the lesion_segmentation_protocol.md file based on comment…
plbenveniste Mar 21, 2024
973c5b2
fixed typo based on Julien's comment
plbenveniste Mar 21, 2024
6d01e30
changed criterias to bullet points
plbenveniste Apr 10, 2024
fddd8e3
replace link to example by hyperlink
plbenveniste Apr 10, 2024
2e7d7fd
typo correction in introduction
plbenveniste Apr 10, 2024
3bbcc6a
changed json link to json example in the readme
plbenveniste Apr 10, 2024
ffa1b0a
added examples of complicated lesion segmentations
plbenveniste Apr 10, 2024
61291c7
QC explanation reformatting
plbenveniste Apr 10, 2024
fe015f5
add sct_qc commands
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
7e18554
added software section
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
b98087b
added ref at the bottom to other segmentation protocols
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
77425fb
added step 2 : sc anatomy and lesion segmentation
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
6e4a30b
julien typo fix : remove":"
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
7e0eac3
typo fix : remove ":" 2
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
359f051
rewrite partial volume explanation
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
8928382
rewrite sentence on not segmenting above first vert
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
f9a370b
rewrite two options for seg
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
11ac1d6
rewrite manual correction explanation
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
b525c0c
rewrite QC
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
5f11e4f
rewrite protocol when unsure
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
2982982
change last section name
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
e403321
update dataset of multiple contrasts
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
be19641
remove dcm and sci
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
a021996
remove comment
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
657b9bb
add step 3
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
63f305c
lesion definition suggestion
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
13ca692
typo fix
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
888513d
changed step 1 title
plbenveniste Apr 11, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
31 changes: 31 additions & 0 deletions lesion_segmentation_protocol.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
# Lesion segmentation protocol:
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

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 diagnosis criteria, which studies 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/).
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
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.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The 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.
basic_sequences
According to the articles, PSIR sequences seem great! However, here are some potential precisions I would address :
1-Peters and al : PSIR compared to STIR (not the best...) and T2;
2-Fechner : PSIR compared to T2 and T1C+ sequences (not compared to PD sequences...)

Suggested change
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.
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.


## Criteria to segment MS lesions in the spinal cord:
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Do not segment lesions in images with too many artifacts (such as this one : 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…
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Question : in words, what would be an image considered being too artefacted? Any criteria?

Suggested change
Do not segment lesions in images with too many artifacts (such as this one : 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…
Do not segment lesions in images with too many artifacts (such as this one : 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).
Do not segment lesions above the first vertebrae (because here we focus only on MS lesions in the spinal cord).
For lesions segmentations which you are not 100% sure, flag the subject and report it for external validation of the segmentation.
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## How to manually segment lesions:
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
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 detailed in this comment (https://github.com/ivadomed/canproco/issues/73#issuecomment-1912302223).
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- 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.
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"
```

- Then a QC should be produced (prefarably using SCT) and added to a Github issue for further validation by other investigators.
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

- If you are not sure of a subject, it should be flagged on Github for a more open discussion.
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## More details:
plbenveniste marked this conversation as resolved.
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">