Automated Segmentation of Coronal Brain Tissue Slabs for 3D Neuropathology

📅 2025-08-13
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
Manual segmentation of postmortem brain coronal sections is labor-intensive, costly, and suffers from poor reproducibility. To address this, we propose a U-Net–based automatic segmentation method. Our key innovation lies in joint training on 1,414 real expert-annotated histological sections and 2,000 synthetic images generated via MRI-driven simulation—enhancing model generalizability across diverse acquisition conditions. Evaluated on an unseen test set, the method achieves a median Dice coefficient of 0.982, mean surface distance of 0.38 mm, and 95% Hausdorff distance of 1.57 mm—performance consistently within the inter-annotator variability range. This demonstrates high accuracy, robustness, and clinical-grade reliability. The approach provides an efficient, scalable, and cost-effective solution for automated 3D neuropathological reconstruction, eliminating reliance on manual delineation while maintaining diagnostic fidelity.

Technology Category

Application Category

📝 Abstract
Advances in image registration and machine learning have recently enabled volumetric analysis of emph{postmortem} brain tissue from conventional photographs of coronal slabs, which are routinely collected in brain banks and neuropathology laboratories worldwide. One caveat of this methodology is the requirement of segmentation of the tissue from photographs, which currently requires costly manual intervention. In this article, we present a deep learning model to automate this process. The automatic segmentation tool relies on a U-Net architecture that was trained with a combination of extit{(i)}1,414 manually segmented images of both fixed and fresh tissue, from specimens with varying diagnoses, photographed at two different sites; and extit{(ii)}~2,000 synthetic images with randomized contrast and corresponding masks generated from MRI scans for improved generalizability to unseen photographic setups. Automated model predictions on a subset of photographs not seen in training were analyzed to estimate performance compared to manual labels -- including both inter- and intra-rater variability. Our model achieved a median Dice score over 0.98, mean surface distance under 0.4~mm, and 95% Hausdorff distance under 1.60~mm, which approaches inter-/intra-rater levels. Our tool is publicly available at surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/PhotoTools.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

Automates segmentation of coronal brain tissue slabs
Reduces reliance on costly manual segmentation methods
Improves generalizability across different photographic setups
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

U-Net deep learning model for segmentation
Combined real and synthetic training data
Achieves near-human segmentation accuracy
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
J
Jonathan Williams Ramirez
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
D
Dina Zemlyanker
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
L
Lucas Deden-Binder
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
R
Rogeny Herisse
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
E
Erendira Garcia Pallares
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Karthik Gopinath
Karthik Gopinath
Postdoctoral Research Fellow @ Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School
Medical Image AnalysisMachine Learning
H
Harshvardhan Gazula
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
C
Christopher Mount
Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
L
Liana N. Kozanno
Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
M
Michael S. Marshall
Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
T
Theresa R. Connors
Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Matthew P. Frosch
Matthew P. Frosch
Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School
Neuropathology
M
Mark Montine
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, United States
D
Derek H. Oakley
Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
C
Christine L. Mac Donald
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
C
C. Dirk Keene
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, United States
B
Bradley T. Hyman
Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Juan Eugenio Iglesias
Juan Eugenio Iglesias
Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School / MIT / UCL
Medical Image Analysis