TY - JOUR
T1 - Automated estimation of tumor probability in prostate magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging
T2 - Pattern recognition vs quantification
AU - Kelm, B. Michael
AU - Menze, Bjoern H.
AU - Zechmann, Christian M.
AU - Baudendistel, Klaus T.
AU - Hamprecht, Fred A.
PY - 2007/1
Y1 - 2007/1
N2 - Despite its diagnostic value and technological availability, 1H NMR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) has not found its way into clinical routine yet. Prerequisite for the clinical application is an automated and reliable method for the diagnostic evaluation of MRS images. In the present paper, different approaches to the estimation of tumor probability from MRSI in the prostate are assessed. Two approaches to feature extraction are compared: quantification (VARPRO, AMARES, QUEST) and subspace methods on spectral patterns (principal components, independent components, nonnegative matrix factorization, partial least squares). Linear as well as nonlinear classifiers (support vector machines, Gaussian processes, random forests) are applied and discussed. Quantification-based approaches are much more sensitive to the choice and parameterization of the quantification algorithm than to the choice of the classifier. Furthermore, linear methods based on magnitude spectra easily achieve equal performance and also allow for biochemical interpretation in combination with subspace methods. Nonlinear methods operating directly on magnitude spectra achieve the best results but are less transparent than the linear methods.
AB - Despite its diagnostic value and technological availability, 1H NMR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) has not found its way into clinical routine yet. Prerequisite for the clinical application is an automated and reliable method for the diagnostic evaluation of MRS images. In the present paper, different approaches to the estimation of tumor probability from MRSI in the prostate are assessed. Two approaches to feature extraction are compared: quantification (VARPRO, AMARES, QUEST) and subspace methods on spectral patterns (principal components, independent components, nonnegative matrix factorization, partial least squares). Linear as well as nonlinear classifiers (support vector machines, Gaussian processes, random forests) are applied and discussed. Quantification-based approaches are much more sensitive to the choice and parameterization of the quantification algorithm than to the choice of the classifier. Furthermore, linear methods based on magnitude spectra easily achieve equal performance and also allow for biochemical interpretation in combination with subspace methods. Nonlinear methods operating directly on magnitude spectra achieve the best results but are less transparent than the linear methods.
KW - Classification
KW - Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging
KW - Pattern recognition
KW - Quantification
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846062389&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/mrm.21112
DO - 10.1002/mrm.21112
M3 - Article
C2 - 17191229
AN - SCOPUS:33846062389
SN - 0740-3194
VL - 57
SP - 150
EP - 159
JO - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
JF - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
IS - 1
ER -