Michael Kain
University of Rennes
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Michael Kain.
Medical Image Analysis | 2018
Mathieu Hatt; Baptiste Laurent; Anouar Ouahabi; Hadi Fayad; S Tan; L Li; Wei Lu; Vincent Jaouen; Clovis Tauber; Jakub Czakon; Filip Drapejkowski; Witold Dyrka; Sorina Camarasu-Pop; Frédéric Cervenansky; Pascal Girard; Tristan Glatard; Michael Kain; Yao Yao; Christian Barillot; Assen S. Kirov; Dimitris Visvikis
Introduction Automatic functional volume segmentation in PET images is a challenge that has been addressed using a large array of methods. A major limitation for the field has been the lack of a benchmark dataset that would allow direct comparison of the results in the various publications. In the present work, we describe a comparison of recent methods on a large dataset following recommendations by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) task group (TG) 211, which was carried out within a MICCAI (Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention) challenge. Materials and methods Organization and funding was provided by France Life Imaging (FLI). A dataset of 176 images combining simulated, phantom and clinical images was assembled. A website allowed the participants to register and download training data (n = 19). Challengers then submitted encapsulated pipelines on an online platform that autonomously ran the algorithms on the testing data (n = 157) and evaluated the results. The methods were ranked according to the arithmetic mean of sensitivity and positive predictive value. Results Sixteen teams registered but only four provided manuscripts and pipeline(s) for a total of 10 methods. In addition, results using two thresholds and the Fuzzy Locally Adaptive Bayesian (FLAB) were generated. All competing methods except one performed with median accuracy above 0.8. The method with the highest score was the convolutional neural network‐based segmentation, which significantly outperformed 9 out of 12 of the other methods, but not the improved K‐Means, Gaussian Model Mixture and Fuzzy C‐Means methods. Conclusion The most rigorous comparative study of PET segmentation algorithms to date was carried out using a dataset that is the largest used in such studies so far. The hierarchy amongst the methods in terms of accuracy did not depend strongly on the subset of datasets or the metrics (or combination of metrics). All the methods submitted by the challengers except one demonstrated good performance with median accuracy scores above 0.8. Graphical abstract Figure. No Caption available. HighlightsA comparative study of 13 PET segmentation methods was carried out within a MICCAI challenge.The evaluation methodology followed guidelines recently published by the AAPM task group 211.Accuracy was evaluated on a testing dataset of 157 simulated, phantom and clinical PET images.Most of the advanced algorithms performed well and significantly better than thresholds.A method based on convolutional neural networks won the challenge.
Scientific Reports | 2018
Olivier Commowick; Audrey Istace; Michael Kain; Baptiste Laurent; Florent Leray; Mathieu Simon; Sorina Pop; Pascal Girard; Roxana Ameli; Jean-Christophe Ferré; Anne Kerbrat; Thomas Tourdias; Frédéric Cervenansky; Tristan Glatard; Jeremy Beaumont; Senan Doyle; Florence Forbes; Jesse Knight; April Khademi; Amirreza Mahbod; Chunliang Wang; Richard McKinley; Franca Wagner; John Muschelli; Elizabeth M. Sweeney; Eloy Roura; Xavier Lladó; Michel M. dos Santos; Wellington Pinheiro dos Santos; Abel G. Silva-Filho
We present a study of multiple sclerosis segmentation algorithms conducted at the international MICCAI 2016 challenge. This challenge was operated using a new open-science computing infrastructure. This allowed for the automatic and independent evaluation of a large range of algorithms in a fair and completely automatic manner. This computing infrastructure was used to evaluate thirteen methods of MS lesions segmentation, exploring a broad range of state-of-theart algorithms, against a high-quality database of 53 MS cases coming from four centers following a common definition of the acquisition protocol. Each case was annotated manually by an unprecedented number of seven different experts. Results of the challenge highlighted that automatic algorithms, including the recent machine learning methods (random forests, deep learning, …), are still trailing human expertise on both detection and delineation criteria. In addition, we demonstrate that computing a statistically robust consensus of the algorithms performs closer to human expertise on one score (segmentation) although still trailing on detection scores.
JFR 2018 - Journées Françaises de Radiologie | 2018
Christian Barillot; Michel Dojat; Michael Kain
Digital Infrastructures for Research (DI4R 2018) | 2018
Sorina Pop; Axel Bonnet; Camille Maumet; Michael Kain; Christian Barillot; Tristan Glatard
Digital Infrastructures for Research (DI4R 2018) | 2018
Sorina Pop; Axel Bonnet; Camille Maumet; Michael Kain; Christian Barillot; Tristan Glatard
OHBM 2016 - 22nd Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping | 2016
Michel Dojat; Bénédicte Batrancourt; Yann Cointepas; Olivier Coulon; Tristan Glatard; Fabrice Heitz; Michael Kain; Christian Barillot
MICCAI Workshop on MAnagement and Processing of images for Population ImagiNG | 2015
Christian Barillot; Elise Bannier; Olivier Commowick; Isabelle Corouge; Justine Guillaumont; Yao Yao; Michael Kain
Frontiers in Neuroscience | 2015
Tristan Glatard; Yann Cointepas; Olivier Commowick; Michael Kain; Baptiste Laurent; Florent Leray; Christian Barillot
Archive | 2014
Justine Guillaumont; Michael Kain; Christian Barillot
Archive | 2013
Justine Guillaumont; Michael Kain; Christian Barillot