A Structural Graph-Based Method for MRI Analysis

Larissa de O. Penteado; Mateus Riva; Roberto M. Cesar Jr

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 19 references

A Structural Graph-Based Method for MRI Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that representing anatomical structures as statistical-relational graphs can support pediatric MRI segmentation, and it reads its exploratory liver-MRI cost results as initial evidence of viability.

desk verdict A transparent early project report on applying SRG matching to pediatric liver MRI; the single-patient cost table cannot support the viability claim until it is tied to actual segmentation accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00778 v1 pith:F4ISCPM3 submitted 2019-08-02 cs.CV

Larissa de O. Penteado , Mateus Riva , Roberto M. Cesar Jr This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords structuralrelationalgraphpediatricMRIliversegmentationmatchingwatershedmedicalimageanalysisbraintumorattributed

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Pediatric MRI is hard to analyze automatically because children's bodies are still developing, images are noisier, and motion artifacts are common; most segmentation tools are built for adults. The paper proposes to represent anatomical structures as statistical-relational graphs (SRGs), in which vertices carry statistical attributes such as mean intensity and centroid position, and edges carry spatial and intensity relations between structures. It reports exploratory experiments on one patient's T2-weighted liver MRI, where a model graph built from manual annotations is matched to a watershed-derived observation graph, and the matching cost decreases as the centroid attribute is weighted more heavily. The authors take these preliminary results as indicating the project is viable, with future applications planned for pediatric liver substructure and brain tumor segmentation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Statistical-Relational Graph (SRG), defined as $G=(V,E,A_V,A_E)$: vertices represent anatomical structures such as liver segments, and edges represent relations such as the vector between centroids, proportional volume difference, and intensity contrast. The pipeline builds a model graph from manually annotated volumes, builds an observation graph by watershed super-segmentation of the morphological gradient, and then greedily assigns each super-observation vertex to the model vertex minimizing the vertex cost $c_V$. The quality of a solution $S$ is scored by $C(S)=\alpha\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}c_V(s_j)+(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{j,k}c_E(s_j,s_k)$, a weighted sum of vertex and edge attribute distances; tuning the $\alpha_a$ weights is how the framework expresses which anatomical cues matter. This cost carries the argument, because the paper's viability conclusion rests on how it changes under different attribute weights.

What would settle it

Run the greedy SRG match on the same one-patient liver MRI and compare the resulting regions with the manual annotations using an overlap measure such as Dice similarity or a boundary-distance error; if low-cost matches do not correspond to high overlap on the annotated liver substructures, the viability claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's finding is that the SRG matching pipeline can be run end-to-end on a pediatric liver MRI and produces a scalar cost that responds to attribute weighting: the cost drops from 39,659,347 to 22,718,200 as the centroid weight rises to 0.2 and then plateaus. The authors interpret this as showing that centroid position dominates mean intensity in this setting and as evidence that the structural-relational graph framework is viable for pediatric MRI segmentation and recognition. The broader intended claim, stated in the conclusion, is that a successful SRG-based method would aid radiologists in analyzing liver MRIs and would open the way for further SRG applications in medical imaging. The paper does not claim clinical accuracy; the reported evidence is preliminary and consists of cost values rather than segmentation-quality measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on assuming the matching cost reflects real segmentation quality, but the paper never compares its low-cost matches against the manual annotations that built the model graph.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the approach is validated, pediatric liver substructure segmentation could be automated from MRI, reducing reliance on subjective and time-intensive manual analysis.
The same SRG matching machinery could be retargeted to brain tumor segmentation by learning a new model graph, since the paper explicitly names that as the intended application.
The reported dominance of centroid over intensity indicates that attribute weighting and normalization will be central design choices for making the method work.
A model graph learned from manual annotations could encode anatomical priors that let the method handle unusual cases such as tumors or surgically missing organs without full retraining.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the matching cost is later shown to track anatomical correctness, the same cost could serve as an anomaly detector: a region whose match cost stays high under all weightings is likely a structure the model graph does not contain, which is exactly the tumor or missing-organ case.
The plateau in the reported costs at centroid weights above 0.2 suggests the intensity attribute may be effectively ignored; a testable extension is to re-run the experiments with normalized attributes to see whether intensity and volume then influence the match.
The watershed-based observation graph could be replaced by any over-segmentation method, making SRG matching a generic structural layer that could sit on top of modern proposal generators, an integration the paper does not discuss.
On longitudinal pediatric data, learned vertex attributes such as volume and relative position could be parameterized by age, turning the SRG into a model of normal development and highlighting deviations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Penteado et al. report on applying statistical-relational graph matching to pediatric liver MRI. The actual new content is small: one patient, one alpha-parameter scan, no segmentation accuracy metrics. But what's there is clearly described, and the authors are upfront that the results are preliminary and that there are 'significant avenues for improvement.' Credit where due: equations (1)-(4) are explicit, the pipeline is understandable, and the discussion of why centroid dominates intensity is honest, including possible causes (missing attributes, watershed errors, normalization). The paper also correctly identifies a real problem: pediatric MRI differs from adult and few methods target it.

The problems are exactly where the stress-test note lands. Table I reports C(S), the internal cost, but nothing ties low cost to anatomical correctness. The model graph is built from the manual annotations of the same patient used for the observation graph, so the greedy matching has an unfair advantage; small centroid differences may dominate trivially. No Dice, no boundary error, no comparison to any baseline, no error bars. The saturation of cost for centroid weights above 0.1 suggests intensity contributes nothing once position is even mildly weighted, which could be a genuine finding but could also be an artifact of using the same patient for model and observation. The conclusion that the project's viability is 'showcased' is not supported. The authors themselves admit the need for more discriminant attributes and better segmentation, which is more or less an admission that the current evidence is preliminary.

That said, this is an early project report, not a finished method. The math is not novel—it comes from Graciano's dissertation and related prior work—but the paper is transparent about that. It doesn't try to hide the limitations. The citation pattern is fine: it cites the prior SRG work and related structural segmentation literature.

Who is this for? Someone interested in the early-stage adaptation of graph-based structural methods to pediatric imaging might get a sense of a plausible pipeline and some of the pitfalls. But as a standalone result, it has too little experimental support to be useful. I would not cite it in my own work. I would not send it to a serious referee at a journal; it's a workshop-level progress report. If the authors add multi-patient evaluation with overlap metrics and baseline comparisons, then it becomes reviewable.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a structural (statistical) relational graph (SRG) framework for automatic segmentation and structure recognition in pediatric MRI. The method builds a model graph from manually annotated volumes, constructs an observation graph from a watershed super-segmentation of the morphological gradient, and matches the two graphs with a greedy algorithm that minimizes the cost C(S) defined in Eq. (2). The only experiment reported is an exploratory liver MRI study on a single patient, in which the annotated volume is used to create the model graph and the observation graph is also built from that same volume. Table I lists C(S) values for several centroid/intensity attribute weights, and the paper concludes that the preliminary results show viability of the project and motivate future work on liver substructure and brain tumor segmentation.

Significance. The problem is relevant: pediatric MRI analysis faces anatomical variability, motion artifacts, and a scarcity of dedicated tools, and structural graph models are a reasonable direction to explore. The paper has the merit of formulating the SRG cost function explicitly in Eqs. (2)-(4) and of honestly listing likely sources of error, such as watershed over- or under-segmentation, missing discriminative attributes, and improper normalization. However, the central claim of viability is not supported by the reported experiment: there is no overlap metric, boundary error, or clinician evaluation against the manual annotations, no comparison to other segmentation methods, no error bars, and no multi-patient trial. If the method were validated with quantitative anatomical agreement on a larger cohort, it could become a useful structural segmentation tool; as it stands, the manuscript is a work-in-progress report rather than a demonstrated method.

major comments (4)

[Section III-C (Table I)] The central claim of viability rests entirely on the internal matching cost C(S) from Eq. (2), but the paper never compares the greedy matching to the manual labels used to construct the model graph. No Dice overlap, boundary error, or radiologist assessment is reported. Because the observation graph is built from a watershed segmentation of the same volume that supplied the annotations, a low cost may simply reflect that the centroids of watershed regions align with the corresponding labeled regions by construction. The saturation of Table I at centroid weights of 0.1 and above, where intensity information no longer changes the cost, is consistent with this concern. The conclusion's own admission that there are 'significant avenues for improvement' and that improving the observation graph is 'of utmost importance' further indicates that the reported cost values do not yet establish segmentation quality.
[Section III-A and III-B] The experimental evaluation uses a single patient's liver MRI sequence, even though the data section reports nine liver patients and three brain patients. No cross-validation, no held-out patients, no repeated runs, and no statistical error bars are provided. A single exploratory run on one patient cannot support the abstract's claim that the method is viable for pediatric MRI in general. At a minimum, experiments on several patients with quantitative agreement metrics, and ideally with abnormal cases, are needed before viability can be concluded.
[Section II-B4 (Eqs. (3)-(4))] The distance functions d_a are never defined, and no normalization scheme for the attributes (centroid coordinates, mean intensity, volume, and edge attributes) is specified. This makes the numeric values in Table I and their saturation behavior uninterpretable: the centroid may dominate the cost simply because its coordinates are expressed in pixel units while intensity is on a different scale. The manuscript itself lists 'improper normalization of the attributes' as a possible cause in Section III-C, which confirms that this is a load-bearing specification gap. The authors should define normalized distance functions and report how the attribute weights alpha_a are chosen in practice.
[Section II-B4 and IV] The only matching algorithm evaluated is a simple greedy nearest-neighbor initialization, with no refinement or global optimization. Since Table I reports the cost of this unrefined initial solution, the claim of viability conflates the SRG representation itself with a particular, admittedly preliminary matching strategy. The conclusion acknowledges that 'better algorithms for building solutions' are needed, but the experiments do not separate the quality of the graph representation from the quality of the greedy initializer. An evaluation of at least a simple refinement, or a comparison of the greedy result against a stronger baseline, is required to attribute the results to the SRG framework.

minor comments (4)

[Section II-A and title/abstract] The terminology is inconsistent: the abstract and title use 'Structural-Relational Graphs', while Section II-A introduces the acronym as 'Statistical-Relational Graph (SRG)' and later refers to 'structural-relational graphs'. The authors should choose one name and use it consistently.
[Section II-B4 (Eq. (2) text)] There are typos in the sentence around Eq. (2): 'α is a the weight of the verticial cost' should be 'α is the weight of the vertex cost', and 'the cost between the edges {j,k}' should presumably be 'the cost of the edge {j,k}'.
[Table I and Figure 3] The cost values in Table I are not accompanied by the number of super-observation vertices or model vertices, so it is difficult to know whether the costs are on a comparable scale. Figure 3 captions do not indicate which anatomical structures are correctly matched or how the displayed slices relate to the manual annotation; labels and color coding would make the visual evidence interpretable.
[References] References [16] and [17] appear to describe the same work, with [16] being the arXiv preprint and [17] the published journal version. The authors should cite only the published version, or explicitly note that they are citing both the preprint and the final paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-chain circularity; the viability claim is an under-validated self-comparison, not a result forced by construction.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain: the SRG is defined from prior work, the model graph is built from manual annotations, the observation graph is built from a watershed segmentation, and Eq. (2) defines an internal matching cost. There is no equation that reduces the claimed result to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reported cost values in Table I are not compared with the manual labels used to construct the model graph (no Dice, boundary error, or clinician assessment), and the model and observation graphs are both derived from the same single patient volume (Section III-B). This means the 'preliminary results showcased the viability' claim is a same-data self-consistency check rather than an independent validation; this is a serious validity limitation, but it is not a circularity of the derivation-chain type. The authors themselves note possible watershed over/under-segmentation, missing discriminative attributes, and improper normalization (Section III-C). Self-citations to earlier SRG work appear as background and motivation (Section II-A and Section IV), but the central new claim rests on the new experiment, not on a load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited; the non-zero score reflects the unvalidated self-comparison and the minor self-citation context, not a demonstrated circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on several domain assumptions: watershed regions map to anatomy, a single manually annotated patient provides a valid model, greedy matching is sufficient, and centroid/intensity/volume attributes are discriminative. The only explicit free parameters are alpha weights in the cost function, explored rather than fitted. No new entities are introduced; the SRG is inherited from prior cited work.

free parameters (2)

alpha (vertex/edge cost weight) = not fitted; explored values in Table I
In Eq. (2), alpha balances vertex and edge cost; the paper varies it and reports cost but never validates a chosen value by segmentation quality.
alpha_a (per-attribute weights) = not specified; only stated to sum to 1 over edge attributes
In Eqs. (3)-(4), per-attribute weights are customizable; no learning or validation is described, and Table I only varies vertex centroid/intensity weights.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Watershed regions correspond to meaningful anatomical units for graph vertices
The observation graph uses regions from a watershed segmentation of the morphological gradient as vertices; the method's matching assumes these regions can be joined into structures matching model labels (Section III-B).
domain assumption Annotated model graph from one patient is a reliable template for pediatric anatomy
The model graph is created from manually annotated images of the same single patient used for testing, so the evaluation is not independent (Section III-B).
ad hoc to paper Greedy matching with the stated cost function is a sufficient solution search
The paper uses a greedy initial solution as the matching algorithm without exploring alternatives or showing it produces anatomically correct matchings (Section II-B3).
domain assumption Centroid, mean intensity, volume, and relational distances are discriminative for pediatric liver segmentation
These attributes are chosen from prior adult work [13], [18], [19]; no feature analysis on pediatric data is provided (Section II-B1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Structural Graph-Based Method for MRI Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4ISCPM3

@misc{pith2026190800778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Structural Graph-Based Method for MRI Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4ISCPM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00778}
}

read the original abstract

The importance of imaging exams, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), for the diagnostic and follow-up of pediatric pathologies and the assessment of anatomical structures' development has been increasingly highlighted in recent times. Manual analysis of MRIs is time-consuming, subjective, and requires significant expertise. To mitigate this, automatic techniques are necessary. Most techniques focus on adult subjects, while pediatric MRI has specific challenges such as the ongoing anatomical and histological changes related to normal development of the organs, reduced signal-to-noise ratio due to the smaller bodies, motion artifacts and cooperation issues, especially in long exams, which can in many cases preclude common analysis methods developed for use in adults. Therefore, the development of a robust technique to aid in pediatric MRI analysis is necessary. This paper presents the current development of a new method based on the learning and matching of structural relational graphs (SRGs). The experiments were performed on liver MRI sequences of one patient from ICr-HC-FMUSP, and preliminary results showcased the viability of the project. Future experiments are expected to culminate with an application for pediatric liver substructure and brain tumor segmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00778 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Schema of a simple, example SRG. Vertex attributes are between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Selected results from the exploratory experiments on SRG. All images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Detection of alzheimers disease by three-dimensional displacement ﬁeld estimation in structural magnetic resonance imaging,

S. Wang, Y . Zhang, G. Liu, P. Phillips, and T.-F. Yuan, “Detection of alzheimers disease by three-dimensional displacement ﬁeld estimation in structural magnetic resonance imaging,” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 233–248, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclero- sis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging,

D. Garc ´ıa-Lorenzo, S. Francis, S. Narayanan, D. L. Arnold, and D. L. Collins, “Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclero- sis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Cortical abnormalities in bipolar disorder: an mri analysis of 6503 individuals from the enigma bipolar disorder working group,

D. Hibar, L. Westlye, N. Doan, N. Jahanshad, J. Cheung, C. Ching, A. Versace, A. Bilderbeck, A. Uhlmann, B. Mwangi et al. , “Cortical abnormalities in bipolar disorder: an mri analysis of 6503 individuals from the enigma bipolar disorder working group,” Molecular psychiatry, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 932, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Neonatal brain MRI: How reliable is the radiologist’s eye?

B. Morel, G. Antoni, J. Teglas, I. Bloch, and C. Adamsbaum, “Neonatal brain MRI: How reliable is the radiologist’s eye?” Neuroradiology, vol. 58, pp. 189–193, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Neonatal brain mri segmentation: A review,

C. N. Devi, A. Chandrasekharan, V . Sundararaman, and Z. C. Alex, “Neonatal brain mri segmentation: A review,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 64, pp. 163–178, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Small-bowel mri in children and young adults with crohn disease: retrospective head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted mri,

H. Neubauer, T. Pabst, A. Dick, W. Machann, L. Evangelista, C. Wirth, H. K ¨ostler, D. Hahn, and M. Beer, “Small-bowel mri in children and young adults with crohn disease: retrospective head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted mri,” Pediatric radiology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 103–114, 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of brain development in premature and mature newborns,

P. S. H ¨uppi, S. Warﬁeld, R. Kikinis, P. D. Barnes, G. P. Zientara, F. A. Jolesz, M. K. Tsuji, and J. J. V olpe, “Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of brain development in premature and mature newborns,” Annals of neurology , vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 224–235, 1998

work page 1998
[8]

An extensive research survey on brain mri enhancement, segmentation and classiﬁcation,

S. Harish, G. A. Ahammed, and R. Banu, “An extensive research survey on brain mri enhancement, segmentation and classiﬁcation,” in Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer , and Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT), 2017 International Conference on . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

work page 2017

Show all 19 references

[9]

Integration of fuzzy spatial relations in deformable modelsapplication to brain mri segmentation,

O. Colliot, O. Camara, and I. Bloch, “Integration of fuzzy spatial relations in deformable modelsapplication to brain mri segmentation,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1401–1414, 2006

2006
[10]

Sequential model-based segmentation and recognition of image structures driven by visual features and spatial relations,

G. Fouquier, J. Atif, and I. Bloch, “Sequential model-based segmentation and recognition of image structures driven by visual features and spatial relations,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding , vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 146–165, 2012

2012
[11]

A challenging issue: Detection of white matter hyperintensities in neonatal brain mri,

B. Morel, Y . Xu, A. Virzi, T. G ´eraud, C. Adamsbaum, and I. Bloch, “A challenging issue: Detection of white matter hyperintensities in neonatal brain mri,” in Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2016 IEEE 38th Annual International Conference of the . IEEE, 20...

2016
[12]

A constraint propagation approach to structural model based image segmentation and recognition,

O. Nempont, J. Atif, and I. Bloch, “A constraint propagation approach to structural model based image segmentation and recognition,” Infor- mation Sciences , vol. 246, pp. 1–27, 2013

2013
[13]

Modelagem e reconhecimento de objetos es- truturados: uma abordagem estat ´ıstico-estrutural,

A. B. V . Graciano, “Modelagem e reconhecimento de objetos es- truturados: uma abordagem estat ´ıstico-estrutural,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of S ˜ao Paulo, 2012

2012
[14]

Graph-based object tracking using structural pattern recognition,

A. B. Graciano, R. M. Cesar-Jr, and I. Bloch, “Graph-based object tracking using structural pattern recognition,” in Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 2007. SIBGRAPI 2007. XX Brazilian Symposium on . IEEE, 2007, pp. 179–186

2007
[15]

A graph-based approach for online multi-object tracking in structured videos with an application to action recognition,

H. Morimitsu, “A graph-based approach for online multi-object tracking in structured videos with an application to action recognition,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of S ˜ao Paulo, 2015

2015
[16]

A new algorithm for interactive structural image segmentation,

A. Noma, A. B. Graciano, L. A. Consularo, R. M. Cesar-Jr, and I. Bloch, “A new algorithm for interactive structural image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.1854, 2008

2008 arXiv
[17]

Interactive image segmentation by matching attributed re- lational graphs,

A. Noma, A. B. Graciano, R. M. Cesar Jr, L. A. Consularo, and I. Bloch, “Interactive image segmentation by matching attributed re- lational graphs,” Pattern Recognition , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1159–1179, 2012

2012
[18]

Modeling and recognition of structured objects: a statistical-relational approach,

A. B. V . Graciano, R. M. Cesar Jr., and I. Bloch, “Modeling and recognition of structured objects: a statistical-relational approach,” in Stockholm. Proc. Workshop FEAST - ICPR 2014 . IEEE, 2014

2014
[19]

Exploring structure for long-term tracking of multiple objects in sports videos,

H. Morimitsu, I. Bloch, and R. M. Cesar-Jr, “Exploring structure for long-term tracking of multiple objects in sports videos,”Computer Vision and Image Understanding , 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Detection of alzheimers disease by three-dimensional displacement ﬁeld estimation in structural magnetic resonance imaging,

S. Wang, Y . Zhang, G. Liu, P. Phillips, and T.-F. Yuan, “Detection of alzheimers disease by three-dimensional displacement ﬁeld estimation in structural magnetic resonance imaging,” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 233–248, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclero- sis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging,

D. Garc ´ıa-Lorenzo, S. Francis, S. Narayanan, D. L. Arnold, and D. L. Collins, “Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclero- sis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Cortical abnormalities in bipolar disorder: an mri analysis of 6503 individuals from the enigma bipolar disorder working group,

D. Hibar, L. Westlye, N. Doan, N. Jahanshad, J. Cheung, C. Ching, A. Versace, A. Bilderbeck, A. Uhlmann, B. Mwangi et al. , “Cortical abnormalities in bipolar disorder: an mri analysis of 6503 individuals from the enigma bipolar disorder working group,” Molecular psychiatry, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 932, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Neonatal brain MRI: How reliable is the radiologist’s eye?

B. Morel, G. Antoni, J. Teglas, I. Bloch, and C. Adamsbaum, “Neonatal brain MRI: How reliable is the radiologist’s eye?” Neuroradiology, vol. 58, pp. 189–193, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Neonatal brain mri segmentation: A review,

C. N. Devi, A. Chandrasekharan, V . Sundararaman, and Z. C. Alex, “Neonatal brain mri segmentation: A review,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 64, pp. 163–178, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Small-bowel mri in children and young adults with crohn disease: retrospective head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted mri,

H. Neubauer, T. Pabst, A. Dick, W. Machann, L. Evangelista, C. Wirth, H. K ¨ostler, D. Hahn, and M. Beer, “Small-bowel mri in children and young adults with crohn disease: retrospective head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted mri,” Pediatric radiology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 103–114, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of brain development in premature and mature newborns,

P. S. H ¨uppi, S. Warﬁeld, R. Kikinis, P. D. Barnes, G. P. Zientara, F. A. Jolesz, M. K. Tsuji, and J. J. V olpe, “Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of brain development in premature and mature newborns,” Annals of neurology , vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 224–235, 1998

work page 1998

[8] [8]

An extensive research survey on brain mri enhancement, segmentation and classiﬁcation,

S. Harish, G. A. Ahammed, and R. Banu, “An extensive research survey on brain mri enhancement, segmentation and classiﬁcation,” in Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer , and Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT), 2017 International Conference on . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

work page 2017