A deep learning model integrating FCNNs and CRFs for brain tumor segmentation
Xiaomei Zhao1,2, Yihong Wu1, Guidong Song3, Zhenye Li4, Yazhuo Zhang,3,4,5,6 , and Yong Fan7
National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences

1

2
3
4

Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
5
6

7

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders Brain Tumor Center, Beijing, China

China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing, China

Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

*Correspondence to:
Dr. Yihong Wu
National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition
Institute of Automation
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Beijing, 100190, China
Email: yhwu@nlpr.ia.ac.cn
Or
Dr. Yong Fan
Department of Radiology
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Email: yong.fan@uphs.upenn.edu; yong.fan@ieee.org
Tel: +1 215-746-4065
1

1

This article was accepted in the journal Medical Image Analysis.
Please cite this article as: X. Zhao et al., A deep learning model integrating FCNNs and CRFs for brain tumor segmentation,
Medical Image Analysis, Volume 43, January 2018, Pages 98-111.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.10.002

1

ABSTRACT
Accurate and reliable brain tumor segmentation is a critical component in cancer diagnosis, treatment planning,
and treatment outcome evaluation. Build upon successful deep learning techniques, a novel brain tumor
segmentation method is developed by integrating fully convolutional neural networks (FCNNs) and Conditional
Random Fields (CRFs) in a unified framework to obtain segmentation results with appearance and spatial
consistency. We train a deep learning based segmentation model using 2D image patches and image slices in
following steps: 1) training FCNNs using image patches; 2) training CRFs as Recurrent Neural Networks
(CRF-RNN) using image slices with parameters of FCNNs fixed; and 3) fine-tuning the FCNNs and the
CRF-RNN using image slices. Particularly, we train 3 segmentation models using 2D image patches and slices
obtained in axial, coronal and sagittal views respectively, and combine them to segment brain tumors using a
voting based fusion strategy. Our method could segment brain images slice-by-slice, much faster than those based
on image patches. We have evaluated our method based on imaging data provided by the Multimodal Brain
Tumor Image Segmentation Challenge (BRATS) 2013, BRATS 2015 and BRATS 2016. The experimental results
have demonstrated that our method could build a segmentation model with Flair, T1c, and T2 scans and achieve
competitive performance as those built with Flair, T1, T1c, and T2 scans.
Index Terms— Brain Tumor Segmentation, Fully Convolutional Neural Networks, Conditional Random Fields,
Deep learning

1. Introduction
Accurate brain tumor segmentation is of great importance in cancer diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment
outcome evaluation. Since manual segmentation of brain tumors is laborious [1], an enormous effort has devoted
to the development of semi-automatic or automatic brain tumor segmentation methods. Most of the existing brain
tumor segmentation studies are focusing on gliomas that are the most common brain tumors in adults and can be
measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) with multiple sequences, such as T2-weighted fluid attenuated
inversion recovery (Flair), T1-weighted (T1), T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (T1c), and T2-weighted (T2). The
segmentation of gliomas based on MRI data is challenging for following reasons: 1) gliomas may have the same
appearance as gliosis and stroke in MRI data [2]; 2) gliomas may appear in any position of the brain with varied
shape, appearance and size; 3) gliomas invade the surrounding brain tissues rather than displacing them, causing
fuzzy boundaries [2]; and 4) intensity inhomogeneity of MRI data further increases the difficulty.
The existing automatic and semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation methods can be broadly categorized as
either generative model based or discriminative model based methods [3]. The generative model based brain
tumor segmentation methods typically require prior information, which could be gained through probabilistic
image atlases [4-6]. Based on probabilistic image atlases, the brain tumor segmentation problem can be modeled

2

as an outlier detection problem [7].
On the other hand, the discriminative model based methods solve the tumor segmentation problem in a
pattern classification setting, i.e., classifying image voxels as tumor or normal tissues based on image features.
The performance of discriminative model based segmentation methods are hinged on the image features and
classification algorithms. A variety of image features have been adopted in tumor segmentation studies, including
local histograms [8], image textures [9], structure tensor eigenvalues [10], and so on. The most commonly
adopted pattern classification algorithms in brain tumor segmentation studies are support vector machines (SVMs)
[11-13] and random forests [8-10, 14].
More recently, deep learning techniques have been adopted in brain tumor segmentation studies following
their success in general image analysis fields, such as images classification [15], objects detection[16], and
semantic segmentation [17-19]. Particularly, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) were adopted for brain
tumor image segmentation in the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Challenge (BRATS) 2014
[20-22]. More deep learning based brain tumor segmentation methods were presented in the BRATS 2015 and
different deep learning models were adopted, including CNNs [23-25], convolutional restricted Boltzman
machines [26], and Stacked Denoising Autoencoders [27].
Among the deep learning based tumor segmentation methods, the methods built upon CNNs have achieved
better performance. Particularly, both 3D-CNNs [22, 28, 29] and 2D-CNNs [20, 21, 23-25, 30, 31] models were
adopted to build tumor segmentation methods. Although 3D-CNNs can potentially take full advantage of 3D
information of the MRI data, the network size and computational cost are increased too. Therefore, 2D-CNNs
have been widely adopted in the brain tumor segmentation methods. Davy et al. proposed a deep learning method
with two pathways of CNNs, including a convolutional pathway and a fully-connected pathway [21]. Dvorak et al.
modeled the multi-class brain tumor segmentation task as 3 binary segmentation sub-tasks and each sub-task was
solved using CNNs [23]. Very deep CNNs [32] were adopted to segment tumors by Pereira et al. [25]. Most of
these brain tumor segmentation methods train CNNs using image patches, i.e., local regions in MR images. These
methods classify each image patch into different classes, such as healthy tissue, necrosis, edema, non-enhancing
core, and enhancing core. The classification result of each image patch is used to label its center voxel for
achieving the tumor segmentation. Most of the above CNN brain tumor segmentation methods assumed that each
voxel’s label is independent, and they didn’t take the appearance and spatial consistency into consideration. To
take the local dependencies of labels into account, Havaei et al. constructed a cascaded architecture by taking the
pixel-wise probability segmentation results obtained by CNNs trained at early stages as additional input to their
following CNNs [24, 30]. To take into consideration appearance and spatial consistency of the segmentation
results, Markov Random Fields (MRFs), particularly Conditional Random Fields (CRFs), have been integrated
with deep learning techniques in image segmentation studies, either used as a post-process step of CNNs [28, 33]
or formulated as neural networks [18, 19]. In the latter setting, both CNNs and MRFs/CRFs can be trained with

3

back-propagation algorithms, tending to achieve better segmentation performance.
Multiple 2D CNNs could be integrated for segmenting 3D medical images. In particular, Prasoon et al.
proposed a triplanar CNN [34] for knee cartilage segmentation. The triplanar network used 3 CNNs to deal with
patches extracted from xy, yz and zx planes and fused them using a softmax classifier layer. Fritscher et al.
proposed a pseudo 3D patch-based approach [35], consisting of 3 convolutional pathways for image patches in
axial, coronal, and sagittal views respectively and fully connected layers for merging them. Setio et al. used
multi-view convolutional networks for pulmonary nodule detection [36]. Their proposed network architecture
composed multiple streams of 2D CNNs, each of which was used to deal with patches extracted in a specific
angle of the nodule candidates. The outputs of the multiple streams of 2D CNNs were finally combined to detect
pulmonary nodules. However, all these methods built CNNs upon image patches, not readily extendable for
building FCNNs.
Preprocessing of MRI data plays an important role in the discriminative model based tumor segmentation
methods that assume different MRI scans of the same modality have comparable image intensity information. The
intensities of different MRI scans can be normalized by subtracting their specific mean values and dividing by
their specific standard deviation values or by matching histograms [10, 22]. However, the mean values of
intensities of different MRI scans do not necessarily correspond to the same brain tissue, and the histogram
matching might not work well for tumor segmentation studies [8]. A robust intensity normalization has been
adopted in tumor segmentation studies by subtracting the gray-value of the highest histogram bin and normalizing
the standard deviation to be 1 [8].
Inspired by the success of deep learning techniques in medical image segmentation, we propose a new brain
tumor segmentation method by integrating Fully Convolutional Neural Networks (FCNNs) and CRFs in a unified
framework. Particularly, we formulate the CRFs as Recurrent Neural Networks [18], referred to as CRF-RNN.
The integrative model of FCNNs and CRF-RNN is trained in 3 steps: 1) training FCNNs using image patches; 2)
training CRF-RNN using image slices with parameters of FCNNs fixed; and 3) fine-tuning the whole network
using image slices. To make use of 3D information provided by 3D medical images, we train 3 segmentation
models using 2D image patches and slices obtained in axial, coronal and sagittal views respectively, and combine
them to segment brain tumors using a voting based fusion strategy. The proposed method is able to segment brain
images slice-by-slice, which is much faster than the image patch based segmentation methods. Our method could
achieve competitive segmentation performance based on 3 MR imaging modalities (Flair, T1c, T2), rather than 4
modalities (Flair, T1, T1c, T2) [3, 8-10, 14, 20-31], which could help reduce the cost of data acquisition and
storage. We have evaluated our method based on imaging data provided by the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image
Segmentation Challenge (BRATS) 2013, the BRATS 2015, and the BRATS 2016. The experimental results have
demonstrated that our method could achieve promising brain tumor segmentation performance. Preliminary
results have been reported in a conference proceeding paper of the BRATS 2016 [37].

4

2. Methods and materials
2.1 Imaging data
All the imaging data used in this study were obtained from the BRATS 20132, the BRATS 20153 and the BRATS
20164. The BRATS 2013 provided clinical imaging data of 65 glioma patients, including 14 patients with
low-grade gliomas (LGG) and 51 patients with high-grade gliomas (HGG). The patients were scanned with MRI
scanners from different vendors at 4 different centers, including Bern University, Debrecen University, Heidelberg
University, and Massachusetts General Hospital. Each patient had multi-parametric MRI scans, including
T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery (Flair), T1-weighted (T1), T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (T1c),
and T2-weighted (T2). All the MRI scans of the same patient were rigidly co-registered to their T1c scan and
resampled at 1 mm isotropic resolution in a standardized axial orientation with a linear interpolator [3]. All
images were skull stripped. Ground truths were produced by manual annotations. The cases were split into
training and testing sets. The training set consists of 20 HGG and 10 LGG cases. The testing set consists of
Challenge and Leaderboard subsets. The Challenge dataset has 10 HGG cases and the Leaderboard dataset
contains 21 HGG and 4 LGG.
The imaging dataset provided by BRATS 2015 contains imaging data obtained from the BRATS 2012, 2013,
and the NIH Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). Each case has Flair, T1, T1c, and T2 scans aligned onto the same
anatomical template space and interpolated at 1 mm3 voxel resolution. The testing dataset consists of 110 cases
with unknown grades, and the training dataset consists of 220 HGG and 54 LGG cases. In the testing dataset, the
ground truth of each case was produced by manual annotation. In the training dataset, all the cases from the
BRATS 2012 and 2013 were labeled manually, and the cases from the TCIA were annotated by fusing
segmentation results obtained using top-ranked methods of the BRATS 2012 and 2013. The annotations were
inspected visually and approved by experienced raters. The tumor labels of the training cases are provided along
with their imaging scans, while only imaging data are provided for the testing cases for blind evaluation of the
segmentation results.
BRATS 2016 shares the same training dataset with BRATS 2015, which consists of 220 HGG and 54 LGG.
Its testing dataset consists of 191 cases with unknown grades. The ground truth of each testing case was produced
by manual annotation, not released to the competition participants.

2.2 Brain tumor segmentation methods based on FCNNs trained using image patches
Deep learning techniques, particularly CNNs, have been successfully adopted in image segmentation studies. A
deep learning model of CNNs usually has millions or even billions of parameters. To train the deep CNNs with
sufficient training samples, image patch-based techniques are adopted [20-25, 28, 30, 31, 38-40]. With the image
2
3
4

https://www.virtualskeleton.ch/BRATS/Start2013
https://www.virtualskeleton.ch/BRATS/Start2015
https://www.virtualskeleton.ch/BRATS/Start2016

5

patch based representation, the image segmentation problem can be solved as a classification problem of image
patches.
An image patch is a local region extracted from an image to characterize its central pixel/voxel in 2D/3D,
and has the same label as its center pixel/voxel’s label in the classification problem. In the training phase, a large
number of image patches can be extracted to train the CNNs. In the testing phase, image patches extracted from a
testing image are classified one by one by the trained CNNs. Then, the classification results of all image patches
make up a segmentation result of the testing image. However, FCNNs can segment a testing image slice by slice
with improved computational efficiency [30], even though the model is trained using image patches. Since the
number and location of training image patches for each class can be easily controlled by changing the image patch
sampling scheme, image patch-based deep learning segmentation methods can avoid the training sample
imbalance problem. However, a limitation of image patch-based segmentation methods is that relationship among
image patches is typically lost. Integrating CRF-RNN with FCNNs tends to overcome such a limitation in tumor
segmentation.

2.3 The proposed brain tumor segmentation method
The proposed brain tumor segmentation method consists of 4 main steps: pre-processing, segmenting image slices
using deep learning models with integrated FCNNs and CRF-RNN from axial, coronal and sagittal views
respectively, fusing segmentation results obtained in the three different views, and post-processing.
2.3.1 Pre-processing of the imaging data
Since MRI scans typically have varied intensity ranges and are affected by bias fields differently, we adopted a
robust intensity normalization method to make MRI scans of different patients comparable, besides correcting the
bias field of MRI data using N4ITK [41]. Our normalization method is built upon the image mode based method
[8], which normalizes image intensity by subtracting the image mode (e.g. the gray-value of the highest histogram
bin) and normalizing the standard deviation to be 1. As almost half of the brain is the whiter matter [42], the
gray-value of the highest histogram bin typically corresponds to the gray-value of the white matter, and therefore
matching intensity values of the white matter across MRI scans and normalizing the intensity distributions
accordingly would largely make different MRI scans comparable. However, the standard deviation calculated
based on intensity mean value does not necessarily have a fixed tissue meaning. Therefore, in our study a robust
intensity deviation is adopted to replace the standard deviation used in [8]. The robust deviation is computed
based on the gray-value of the highest histogram bin, representing the discreteness of intensity to the gray-value
of white matter. Besides, the intensity mean is more sensitive to noise than the gray value of the highest histogram
bin. Thus the standard deviation calculated based on intensity mean is more sensitive to noise than the robust
deviation.
Given an MRI scan

with voxels { , ,⋯,

} , and each voxel

has intensity

,

V , ,⋯, , the
6

robust deviation

V

V

, where

denotes the gray-value of the highest histogram bin. Our

intensity normalization procedure is following:
Step 1. Transform the intensity range to 0-255 linearly.
Step 2. Calculate the intensity histogram, with 256 bins.
Step 3. Subtract the gray-value of the highest histogram bin

and divide the robust deviation .

Step 4. Multiply each voxel’s intensity by a constant σ and plus a constant

are below 0 or above 255 to 0 and 255 respectively. In the present study, we set

. Then, set the intensities that
and

equal to the gray-value

of the highest histogram bin and robust deviation of NO. 0001 HGG clinical training image data of BRATS 2013,
which has been pre-processed by N4ITK and the step 1. For the Flair, T1c, and T2 scans, =30, 31, 37 and

=75,

99, 55 respectively.
The image intensity normalization effect is illustrated with T2 scans in Fig. 1. Particularly, we randomly
selected 3 subjects from the BRATS 2013 and 3 subjects from the BRATS 2015. The results shown in Fig. 1
clearly demonstrated that the image intention normalization could improve comparability of different scans. The
improvement is further confirmed by image intensity histograms of 30 subjects from the BRATS 2013 training
dataset, as shown in Fig.2.

Fig.1. T2 scans before (top row) and after (bottom row) the proposed intensity normalization. (a-1)-(a-3) and (b-1)-(b-3) are
randomly selected subjects from the BRATS 2013, and (a-4)-(a-6) and (b-4)-(b-6) are randomly selected subjects from the
BRATS 2015. (a-1)-(a-6): before normalization; (b-1)-(b-6): after normalization. All the scans were preprocessed by N4ITK
and the proposed normalization step 1.

Fig.2. Image intensity histograms of T2 scans of 30 subjects from the BRATS 2013 training dataset before (left) and after
(right) the intensity normalization. All the scans were preprocessed by N4ITK and the proposed normalization step 1.

2.3.2 A deep learning model integrating FCNNs and CRFs
The proposed deep learning model for brain tumor segmentation integrates Fully Convolutional Neural Networks

7

(FCNNs) and Conditional Random Fields (CRFs), as illustrated by Fig. 3. We formulated CRFs as Recurrent
Neural Networks (RNNs), referred to as CRF-RNN [18]. The proposed method could segment brain images slice
by slice.

Fig.3. Flowchart of the proposed deep learning model integrating FCNNs and CRFs for brain tumor segmentation.

(1) FCNNs
The structure of our proposed FCNNs is illustrated by Fig. 4. Similar to the network architectures proposed in [28,
30], the inputs to our network are also in 2 different sizes. Passing through a series of convolutional and pooling
layers, the larger inputs turn into feature maps with the same size of smaller inputs. These feature maps and
smaller inputs are sent into following networks together. In this way, both local image information and context
information in a larger scale can be taken into consideration for classifying image patches. Different from the
cascaded architecture proposed in [30], the two branches in our FCNNs are trained simultaneously, rather than
trained in different steps. Furthermore, our model has more convolutional layers.
Our deep FCNNs are trained using image patches, which are extracted from slices of the axial view, coronal
view or sagittal views randomly. Equal numbers of training samples for different classes are extracted to avoid
data imbalance problem. There are 5 classes in total, including healthy tissue, necrosis, edema, non-enhancing
core, and enhancing core.
As shown in Fig. 4, in our deep FCNNs, the kernel size of each max pooling layer is set to

, and the

size of image patches used to train FCNNs is proportional to the kernel size. Different settings of the kernel size
or equivalently the image patch size may affect the tumor segmentation performance. The max pooling layers of
our FCNNs are used to capture image information in large scales with a relatively small number of network
parameters. We set the stride of each layer to be 1. Therefore, in the testing stage, our model can segment brain
images slice by slice.

8

Fig.4. The network structure of our deep FCNNs.

(2) CRF-RNN

CRF-RNN formulates 2D fully connected Conditional Random Fields as Recurrent Neural Networks [18]. Given
a 2D image

, comprising a set of pixels {

V ,…,u} , the image segmentation problem is solved as an

optimization problem using fully connected CRFs by minimizing an energy function [43] :
u
V

V

where

,h,

is a certain label assignment to , ,h

denotes the assignment of label

to pixel

h,

measures the cost of assigning label
assigning label

and

jointly to

and

to pixel

V

,h,

h

denotes the probability of assigning label

Differentiating Eqn. (2) with respect to

,

h

(1)

denotes the assignment of label

to pixel

, and the pairwise term

to [19], minimizing

to pixel

h,h

h

measures the cost of

,

h

where

V

V th

V

is the number of Gaussian kernel;

coordinates of

h

and

(

and
h,

,

h

,

h

,

,

V

(3)

},

h

h

,

and

h

h

is defined

,

is a Gaussian kernel,

denote the intensity of
and

(2)

, which is the variable that we aim to estimate.

as
h

h

equals to minimizing an energy

,

h

,

can be obtained from the FCNNs, and the pairwise potential

,

,

and setting the differentiation result equal to 0, we have

th {

The unary term

,

V { , ,⋯, } are segmentation labels, the unary term

,

h . According

function:

where

{ ,…,u},

h

(4)
V exp

respectively,

are parameters of the Gaussian kernels);

h

and

h

h

and

denote spatial

is a weight for the

9

Gaussian kernel
intensity ( ,

h)

;

and

denote image feature vectors of

h

and spatial position information ( ,

h );

Substituting (4) into (3), we get:

,

,

th {

V

and

indicates the compatibility of labels
,

h

Fully connected CRF predicts the probability of assigning label

respectively, encoding their

h

to pixel

h

and .
(5)

}.

h

according to Eqn. (5), and

can

be calculated using a mean field iteration algorithm formulated as Recurrent Neural Networks so that CNNs and
the fully connected CRF are integrated as one deep network and can be trained using a back-propagation
algorithm [18]. Fig. 5 shows the network structure of CRF-RNN. G and G in Fig. 5 are two gating functions:
V

where
output

V{

, ,…,u ,

of one mean-field iteration;

output of FCNNs, and
and

t

th

th

Vt

V t

t

V

,

t

,

,

V

denotes the input

},

h

t
,

t , V
,

,

h

provided by Flair, T1c and T2 slices with

t

denotes the final prediction results of CRF-RNN.

denotes the

that after softmax operation. represents the

V t，

V t while

t

denotes the
denotes the

mean-field iteration,

is the output of FCNNs,

are computed based on pixel features
V h ，

(6)
(7)

of one mean-field iteration;

is the total number of mean-field iterations. In our study, the unary term

and the pairwise potential

,

and

and

h

with information

are learned in the training

phase [18]. By integrating FCNNs and CRF-RNN in one deep network, we are able to train the network
end-to-end with a typical back-propagation algorithm [18].

Fig.5. The network structure of CRF-RNN.

(3) The integration of FCNNs and CRF-RNN
The proposed brain tumor segmentation network consists of FCNNs and CRF-RNN. The FCNNs predict the

10

probability of assigning segmentation labels to each pixel, and the CRF-RNN takes the prediction results and
image information as its input to globally optimize appearance and spatial consistency of the segmentation results
according to each pixel’s intensity and position information.
The proposed deep learning network of FCNNs and CRF-RNN is trained in 3 steps: 1) training FCNNs using
image patches; 2) training CRF-RNN using image slices with parameters of FCNNs fixed; and 3) fine-tuning the
whole network using image slices.
Once the fine-tune of deep learning based segmentation model is done, the model can be applied to image
slices one by one for segmenting tumors. Given an

t image slice with 3 channels, i.e., pre-processed Flair,

T1c, and T2 scans respectively, we first pad the image slice with zeros to create 2 larger images with sizes of
t

t

t

t and

tG

h

t

tG

h

t

respectively. Using these 2 larger

images as inputs of the FCNNs, we obtain 5 label predication images
, , ,

,h

,

V , ,t,G,橔,

V {h ,h

, , ,th}, with the same size of the original image slices. h ,h represents one pixel’s predicted

probability of brain tissue labels, such as healthy tissue, necrosis, edema, non-enhancing core or enhancing core.
Then, these label predication images

V{

V , ,t,G,橔} along with the image slice V {

h,

h,

} are

used as inputs to the CRF-RNN. Finally, the CRF-RNN obtains a globally optimized segmentation result of the
original image slice. Fig. 3 shows the flowchart of the proposed deep learning model integrating FCNNs and
CRF-RNN for brain tumor segmentation.
In the training steps 2 and 3, we first calculate softmax loss according to the current segmentation results and
the ground truth, and then the loss information is back-propagated to adjust network parameters of the integrated
FCNNs and CRF-RNN. In the training step 2, we fix FCNNs and adjust the parameters in CRF-RNN. In the
training step 3, we set a small learning rate and fine-tune the parameters of the whole network. In our experiments,
the initial learning rate was set to

橔

and the learning rate was divided by 10 after each 20 epoches in the

training step 1, and the learning rate was set to

㌳

and

respectively in the training steps 2 and 3.

2.3.3 Fusing segmentation results obtained in axial, coronal and sagittal views
We train 3 segmentation models using patches and slices of axial, coronal and sagittal views respectively. During
testing, we use these 3 models to segment brain images slice by slice in 3 different views, yielding 3 segmentation
results. A majority voting strategy is adopted to fuse the segmentation results. Let h , hh , and h

denote the

segmentation results of one voxel gotten in axial, coronal and sagittal views respectively, let h denote the
segmentation result after fusion, let

, , ,t,G denote a voxel labeled as healthy tissue, necrosis, edema,

non-enhancing core, and enhancing core respectively, the fused segmentation result is obtained by following
voting procedure:

Step 1. If two or more than two of h , hh, and h are above 0, let h V .
Step 2. If two or more than two of h , hh, and h equal to 1, let h V .

11

Step 3. If two or more than two of h , hh, and h equal to 3, let h V t.
Step 4. If two or more than two of h , hh, and h equal to 4, let h V G.

2.3.4 Post-processing

To further improve the brain tumor segmentation performance, a post-processing method is proposed. Hereinafter,
h,

h,

denote pre-processed Flair, T1c, T2 MR images respectively,

result obtained by our integrated deep learning model,
denote the value of voxel t, ,
the voxel

h

h,

h,

, and

,

t, ,

h

respectively,

t, ,

,

t, ,

, and

t, ,

V , , ,t,G indicates that

t, ,

is labeled as healthy tissue, necrosis, edema, non-enhancing core, and enhancing core

t, ,

respectively, u
in

in

h

denotes the segmentation

h

and

and u

denote the average intensity of the whole tumor region indicated by

scans. For a segmentation result
t

denote the average intensity of the

with

3D connected tumor regions,

3D connected tumor area in

h

The post-processing method consists of following step:
Step 1. If

and

h

t

to be 0 so that the

t

, set all voxels in the

3D connected tumor region is removed from

and

h

and

respectively.

3D connected tumor area in

, taking into consideration that

isolated local areas with super high intensities are usually caused by imaging noise rather than tumors. In the
present study,

V 橔 .

V

Step 2. If a voxel t, ,
①

set

t, ,

h

t, ,

V .

satisfies the following conditions at the same time:
h ,②

u

h

, ③

t, ,

t, ,

, ④

u

t

t, ,

G,

In general, tumor tissues have high signal in at least one modality of Flair, T1c, and T2. Voxels with low
signal in Flair, T1c, and T2 at the same time are generally not tumor tissues. Thus, this step removes those
segmented tumor regions whose intensities in Flair, T1c, T2 are below 3 thresholds respectively. However,
enhancing core is an exception. In the present study,
Step 3. Let t

denote the volume of the

V h㌳,
t

volume of the maximum 3D connected tumor area in
connected segmented tumor region in
Step 5. If

h

t, ,

G

. In the present study,

and

t, ,

橔,

t

V h .

3D connected tumor area in

. If t

Step 4. Fill the holes in Re s with necrosis. Holes in

V

t

V h .

t

.
t

t

t

, remove the

t

is the
t

3D

are very likely to be necrosis.

V G , set

t, ,

V

. Our model may mistakenly label

necrosis areas as enhancing core. This step corrects this potential mistake through a threshold in T1c. In the
present study,
Step 6. Let

G

V

t

the whole tumor. If

.

denote the volume of enhancing core represented in
t

t

h

,

h

t, ,

h

, and

t, ,

, and
V , set

t

denote the volume of
t, ,

V t . Our tumor

segmentation model is not sensitive to non-enhancing core. In our model, non-enhancing regions might be

12

mistakenly labeled as edema, especially when the enhancing core region is very small. In the present study,
h 橔,

h

V ㌳橔.

h

V

The parameters were set based on the BRATS 2013 dataset. Since the number of training cases of the

BRATS 2013 is small, we did not cross-validate the parameters, therefore they are not necessarily optimal. We
used the same parameters in all of our experiments, including our experiments on BRATS 2013, 2015 and 2016.
In addition to the aforementioned post-processing steps, we could also directly use CRF as a post-processing step
of FCNNs as did in a recent study [28].

3. Experiments
Our experiments were carried out based on imaging data provided by the BRATS 2013, 2015 and 2016 on a
computing server with multiple Tesla K80 GPUs and Intel E5-2620 CPUs. However, only one GPU and one CPU
were useable at the same time for our experiments. Our deep learning models were built upon Caffe [44].
Based on the BRATS 2013 data, a series of experiments were carried out to evaluate how different
implementation of the proposed method affect tumor segmentation results with respect to CRF, post-processing,
image patch size, number of training image patches, pre-processing, and imaging scans used. We also present
segmentation results obtained for the BRATS 2013. The segmentation model was built upon the training data and
then evaluated based on the testing data. Since no ground truth segmentation result for the testing data was
provided, all the segmentation results were evaluated by the BRATS evaluation website. The tumor segmentation
performance was evaluated using the BRATS segmentation evaluation metrics for complete tumor, core region,
and enhancing region, including Dice, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Sensitivity. Particularly, the complete
tumor includes necrosis, edema, non-enhancing core, and enhancing core; the core region includes necrosis,
non-enhancing core, and enhancing core; and the enhancing region only includes the enhancing core. The tumor
segmentation evaluation metrics are defined as follows:

where

h

V

,

indicates complete, core or enhancing region,

segmented region,
and

,

,

V

,

,

V

,

denotes the manually labeled region,

denotes the overlap area between

and

, and

and

denotes the

denote the areas of

respectively.

3.1. Experiments on BRATS 2013 dataset
The BRATS 2013 training dataset contains 10 LGG and 20 HGG. Its testing dataset consists of two subsets,
namely Challenge and Leaderboard. The Challenge dataset has 10 HGG cases and the Leaderboard dataset
contains 21 HGG and 4 LGG.
A number of experiments were carried out based on the BRATS 2013 dataset, including 1) comparing the
segmentation performance of FCNNs with and without post-processing, and the performance of the proposed
deep learning network integrating FCNNs and CRF-RNN (hereinafter referred to as FCNN+CRF) with and
13

without post-processing, in order to validate the effectiveness of CRFs and post-processing; 2) evaluating the
segmentation performance of FCNN+CRF with 5 post-processing steps (6 post-processing steps in total), in order
to test the effectiveness of each post-processing step; 3) evaluating the segmentation performance of FCNNs
trained using different sizes of patches; 4) evaluating the segmentation performance of FCNNs trained using
different numbers of patches; 5) comparing the segmentation performance of segmentation models built upon
scans of 4 imaging sequences (Flair, T1, T1c, and T2) and 3 imaging sequences (Flair, T1c, and T2); and 6)
evaluating how the image preprocessing step affect the segmentation performance. All the above experiments
were performed in axial view. Apart from these experiments described above, we show the effectiveness of fusing
segmentation results of three views in Section 3.1.7 and summarize comparison results with other methods in
Section 3.1.8.
3.1.1. Evaluating the effectiveness of CRFs and post-processing
Table 1 shows the evaluation results of FCNNs with and without post-processing, and FCNN+CRF (our
integrated network of FCNNs and CRF-RNN) with and without post-processing on the BRATS 2013 Challenge
dataset and Leaderboard dataset. These results demonstrated that CRFs improved the segmentation accuracy and
so did the post-processing. With respect to both Dice and PPV, FCNN+post-process and FCNN+CRF improved
the segmentation performance in all complete tumor, core region, and enhancing region. However, CRFs and
post-process reduced Sensitivity. It is worth noting that CRFs improved Sensitivity of the enhancing region. In
summary, CRFs improved both the Dice and PPV and decreased the Sensitivity on the complete and core regions,
FCNN+CRF+post-process obtained the best performance with respect to Dice and PPV, but degraded the
performance with respect to the Sensitivity, especially on the complete tumor region.
We also adopted a 3D CRF based post-processing step as did in a recent study [28]. Particularly, the
parameters of the 3D CRF were optimized by grid searching based on the training dataset of BRATS 2013. Table
1 summarizes segmentation scores obtained by our method with different settings. These results indicated that 3D
CRF as a post-processing step could improve the segmentation performance as 3D information was taken into
consideration. However, our proposed post-processing procedure could further improve the segmentation
performance.
Fig. 6 shows representative segmentation results on the BRATS 2013 Challenge dataset. These segmentation
results demonstrated that FCNN+CRF could improve the spatial and appearance consistence of segmentation
results, and FCNN+CRF+post-process could reduce false positives.
Table 1. Evaluation results of FCNNs with and without post-processing, FCNN+CRF with and without post-processing, and
FCNN+3D-CRF with and without post-processing. (The sizes of image patches used to train FCNNs were 33*33*3 and
65*65*3 respectively, n=5, and the number of patches used to train FCNNs was 5000*5*20. FCNN+CRF is short for the
integrated network of FCNNs and CRF-RNN)
Dataset

Methods

Challenge

FCNNs
FCNN+post-process

Dice

complete

core

0.74
0.81

0.72
0.75

PPV

enhancing complete
0.67
0.73

0.62
0.73

core
0.63
0.70

Sensitivity

enhancing complete
0.60
0.73

0.94
0.94

core

enhancing

0.86
0.85

0.77
0.74

14

Leaderboard

FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNN+3D-CRF
FCNN+3D-CRF
+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+post-process
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNN+3D-CRF
FCNN+3D-CRF
+post-process

0.85
0.87
0.85

0.80
0.83
0.80

0.70
0.76
0.73

0.87
0.92
0.84

0.80
0.87
0.78

0.63
0.77
0.69

0.84
0.83
0.88

0.81
0.81
0.83

0.80
0.77
0.80

0.87

0.83

0.78

0.89

0.85

0.78

0.86

0.83

0.79

0.70
0.81
0.83
0.86
0.84

0.61
0.65
0.66
0.73
0.65

0.54
0.61
0.57
0.62
0.61

0.58
0.74
0.85
0.89
0.81

0.57
0.63
0.71
0.76
0.71

0.49
0.62
0.50
0.64
0.57

0.96
0.94
0.85
0.84
0.90

0.74
0.78
0.69
0.78
0.71

0.67
0.66
0.71
0.68
0.71

0.87

0.71

0.63

0.88

0.74

0.63

0.88

0.79

0.70

Fig.6. Example segmentation results on the BRATS 2013 Challenge dataset. The first and second rows show the
segmentation results of the 50th and 80th slice of the axial view of Subject 0301. The third and fourth rows show the
segmentation results of the 40th and 70th slice of the axial view of Subject 0308. From left to right: Flair, T1c, T2,
segmentation results of FCNNs, segmentation results of FCNN+CRF, and segmentation results of FCNN+CRF+post-process.
In the segmentation results, each gray level represents a tumor class, from low to high: necrosis, edema, non-enhancing core,
and enhancing core.

3.1.2. Evaluating the effectiveness of each post-processing step
To investigate the effectiveness of each post-processing step, we obtained segmentation results of
FCNN+CRF+post-x, x=1, 2, …, 6. In particular, FCNN+CRF+post-x indicates FCNN+CRF with all other
post-processing steps except the step x. As described in section 2.3.4, our post-processing consists of 6 steps in
total. All the evaluation results are summarized in Table 2. These results indicated that the post-processing step 3
played the most important role in the tumor segmentation, although all these post-processing steps might
contribute the segmentation.
Table 2. The evaluation results of FCNN+CRF with 5 of 6 post-processing steps (FCNN+CRF+post-x indicates
FCNN+CRF with all other post-processing steps except the step x, the sizes of patches used to train FCNNs were 33*33*3
and 65*65*3 respectively, n=5, and the number of patches used to train FCNNs was 5000*5*20.)
Dataset

Methods

Challenge

FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNN+CRF+post-1

Dice
complete

core

0.87
0.87

0.83
0.83

PPV
enhancing complete
0.76
0.76

0.92
0.92

core
0.87
0.87

Sensitivity
enhancing complete core
0.77
0.77

0.83
0.83

0.81
0.81

enhancing
0.77
0.77

15

FCNN+CRF+post-2
FCNN+CRF+post-3
FCNN+CRF+post-4
FCNN+CRF+post-5
FCNN+CRF+post-6
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNN+CRF+post-1
FCNN+CRF+post-2
Leaderboard
FCNN+CRF+post-3
FCNN+CRF+post-4
FCNN+CRF+post-5
FCNN+CRF+post-6

0.86
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.84
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86

0.83
0.80
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.73
0.71
0.73
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.70

0.76
0.72
0.76
0.74
0.76
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.59
0.62
0.59
0.62

0.90
0.88
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.89
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.89
0.89
0.89

0.87
0.80
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.76
0.75
0.76
0.73
0.77
0.76
0.76

0.77
0.69
0.77
0.70
0.77
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.57
0.64
0.57
0.64

0.84
0.83
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.82
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.84
0.84

0.81
0.81
0.78
0.81
0.81
0.78
0.77
0.77
0.75
0.74
0.76
0.71

0.77
0.77
0.77
0.79
0.77
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.71
0.68

3.1.3. Evaluating the impact of image patch size
We used different kernel sizes in all the pooling layers to train different FCNNs. The training image patch size
changed with the kernel size, as shown in Fig. 4, while the number of parameters in FCNNs was unchanged. We
evaluated the segmentation performance of our segmentation models with n=1,3,5, as summarized in Table 3.
When n=1,3,5, the corresponding sizes of training patches are 21*21*3 (small input patch) and 41*41*3 (large
input patch), 27*27*3 and 53*53*3, 33*33*3 and 65*65*3. Bar plots of the Dice of complete regions on the
Challenge dataset with different training patch sizes are shown in Fig. 7. These segmentation results indicated that
1) a bigger patch provided more information and helped improve FCNNs’ performance; 2) the CRF-RNN could
reduce the performance differences caused by patch size as CRF-RNN could optimize the segmentation results
according to the information in a whole image slice; and 3) the post-processing could further reduce the
performance difference caused by patch size.

Fig.7. Bar plots for the Dice of complete regions on the Challenge dataset with different training patch sizes.
Table 3. Evaluation results of our segmentation model with n=1,2,3 (The number of patches used to train FCNNs was
5000*5*20.)
Dataset

n
1

Challenge

3
5

Leaderboard

1

Methods
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs

Dice
complete

core

0.70
0.83
0.86
0.71
0.83
0.86
0.74
0.85
0.87
0.64

0.62
0.78
0.83
0.67
0.77
0.82
0.72
0.80
0.83
0.54

PPV
enhancing complete
0.64
0.69
0.76
0.65
0.69
0.76
0.67
0.70
0.76
0.49

0.57
0.85
0.92
0.58
0.83
0.91
0.62
0.87
0.92
0.50

core
0.50
0.79
0.88
0.56
0.74
0.84
0.63
0.80
0.87
0.45

Sensitivity
enhancing complete core enhancing
0.55
0.63
0.77
0.57
0.63
0.78
0.60
0.63
0.77
0.42

0.94
0.83
0.82
0.95
0.85
0.84
0.94
0.84
0.83
0.96

0.87
0.79
0.80
0.86
0.82
0.82
0.86
0.81
0.81
0.76

0.79
0.79
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.76
0.77
0.80
0.77
0.71

16

3
5

FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process

0.82
0.85
0.67
0.83
0.86
0.70
0.83
0.86

0.65
0.72
0.57
0.66
0.72
0.61
0.66
0.73

0.57
0.61
0.52
0.57
0.62
0.54
0.57
0.62

0.83
0.88
0.54
0.82
0.88
0.58
0.85
0.89

0.70
0.76
0.50
0.67
0.74
0.57
0.71
0.76

0.51
0.59
0.45
0.51
0.60
0.49
0.50
0.64

0.85
0.84
0.96
0.87
0.86
0.96
0.85
0.84

0.69
0.76
0.75
0.72
0.79
0.74
0.69
0.78

0.72
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.69
0.67
0.71
0.68

3.1.4. Evaluating the impact of the number of image patches used to train FCNNs
The BRATS 2013 training dataset contains 10 LGG and 20 HGG. In our experiments, we trained our
segmentation model using the 20 HGG cases, and our model worked well for segmenting LGG cases. To
investigate the impact of the number of training patches on the segmentation performance, we trained FCNNs
with varied numbers of image patches. In particular, we sampled training imaging patches randomly from each
subject and kept the number of training samples for different classes equal (5 classes in total, including normal
tissue, necrosis, edema, non-enhancing core, and enhancing core). We generated 3 sets of image patches by
sampling, consisting of 1000*5*20, 3000*5*20, and 5000*5*20 patches respectively, and used them to train
different segmentation models. The evaluation results are summarized in in Table 4. Bar plots of the Dice of
complete regions on the Challenge dataset with different numbers of training patches are shown in Fig. 8.
The results shown in Table 4 and Fig.8 indicated that the brain tumor segmentation accuracy of FCNNs
increased with the increasing of the number of training patches. However, both CRFs and post-processing could
reduce the performance difference.

Fig.8. Bar plots for the Dice of complete regions on the Challenge dataset with different numbers of training image patches.
Table.4 Evaluation results of the segmentation models trained using different numbers of training image patches (the sizes of
image patches used to train FCNNs were 33*33*3 and 65*65*3 respectively, n=5)
Dataset

Challenge

No. of
patches

Methods

complete
FCNNs
0.71
1000*5*20
FCNN+CRF
0.84
FCNN+CRF+post-process
0.87
FCNNs
0.73
3000*5*20
FCNN+CRF
0.84
FCNN+CRF+post-process
0.86
FCNNs
0.74
5000*5*20
FCNN+CRF
0.85
FCNN+CRF+post-process
0.87

Dice
core enhancing complete
0.68
0.62
0.57
0.78
0.68
0.84
0.82
0.76
0.91
0.70
0.66
0.60
0.80
0.69
0.86
0.83
0.77
0.92
0.72
0.67
0.62
0.80
0.70
0.87
0.83
0.76
0.92

PPV
Sensitivity
core enhancing complete core enhancing
0.58
0.54
0.95
0.86
0.76
0.78
0.61
0.85
0.81
0.79
0.86
0.77
0.84
0.81
0.77
0.61
0.59
0.94
0.86
0.76
0.79
0.62
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.86
0.77
0.83
0.82
0.77
0.63
0.60
0.94
0.86
0.77
0.80
0.63
0.84
0.81
0.80
0.87
0.77
0.83
0.81
0.77

17

FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
3000*5*20
FCNN+CRF
Learderboard
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
5000*5*20
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
1000*5*20

0.66
0.83
0.86
0.69
0.83
0.85
0.70
0.83
0.86

0.58
0.65
0.72
0.60
0.65
0.72
0.61
0.66
0.73

0.51
0.56
0.61
0.52
0.56
0.61
0.54
0.57
0.62

0.53
0.82
0.88
0.57
0.84
0.89
0.58
0.85
0.89

0.53
0.71
0.76
0.56
0.70
0.75
0.57
0.71
0.76

0.45
0.51
0.63
0.47
0.49
0.59
0.49
0.50
0.64

0.96
0.86
0.85
0.96
0.85
0.84
0.96
0.85
0.84

0.74
0.69
0.77
0.74
0.69
0.77
0.74
0.69
0.78

0.67
0.70
0.68
0.67
0.71
0.68
0.67
0.71
0.68

In summary, all the experimental results demonstrated that both CRFs and the post-processing method can
narrow the performance difference caused by training patch sizes and training patch numbers, indicating that
CRFs and the post-processing method might be able to narrow the performance difference caused by other
training tricks. We will confirm this inference in our future work.
3.1.5. Performance Comparison between segmentation models built upon 4 and 3 imaging modalities
We also built a segmentation model using all available 4 imaging modalities, i.e., Flair, T1, T1c, and T2, and
compared its segmentation performance with that of the segmentation model built upon 3 imaging modalities, i.e.,
Flair, T1c, and T2. The segmentation results of these segmentation models are summarized in Table 5. These
results demonstrated that these two segmentation models achieved similar performance, indicating that a
segmentation model built upon Flair, T1c, and T2 could achieve competitive performance as the model built upon
4 imaging modalities.
Table.5 Performance comparison of segmentation models built upon scans of 4 imaging modalities and 3 imaging modalities
(the sizes of patches used to train FCNNs were 33*33*4 and 65*65*4, or 33*33*3 and 65*65*3 respectively, n=5, and the
number of patches used to train FCNNs was 5000*5*20)
Dataset

No. of
modalities
4

Challenge
3
4
Learderboard
3

Methods
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process

complete
0.74
0.85
0.87
0.74
0.85
0.87
0.69
0.82
0.85
0.70
0.83
0.86

Dice
PPV
Sensitivity
core enhancing complete core enhancing complete core enhancing
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.64
0.60
0.95
0.86
0.77
0.80
0.71
0.85
0.79
0.67
0.87
0.82
0.78
0.83
0.76
0.91
0.85
0.78
0.84
0.82
0.76
0.72
0.67
0.62
0.63
0.60
0.94
0.86
0.77
0.80
0.70
0.87
0.80
0.63
0.84
0.81
0.80
0.83
0.76
0.92
0.87
0.77
0.83
0.81
0.77
0.59
0.55
0.57
0.56
0.49
0.95
0.72
0.68
0.64
0.58
0.82
0.70
0.55
0.85
0.67
0.68
0.74
0.62
0.89
0.75
0.62
0.83
0.79
0.66
0.61
0.54
0.58
0.57
0.49
0.96
0.74
0.67
0.66
0.57
0.85
0.71
0.50
0.85
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.62
0.89
0.76
0.64
0.84
0.78
0.68

3.1.6. Evaluation of different pre-processing strategies on the tumor segmentation
We preprocessed the imaging data using our robust deviation based intensity normalization and the standard
deviation based intensity normalization [8], and then evaluated segmentation models built on them separately. As
the results shown in Table 6 indicated, the robust deviation based intensity normalization could slightly improve
the segmentation performance.
Table.6 Performance comparison of segmentation models built upon images normalized by the robust deviation and the
standard deviation (the sizes of patches used to train FCNNs were 33*33*3 and 65*65*3 respectively, n=5, and the number
of patches used to train FCNNs was 5000*5*20)
Dataset

Deviation

Methods

standard

FCNNs
FCNN+CRF

Dice
PPV
Sensitivity
complete core enhancing complete core enhancing complete core enhancing
0.73
0.69
0.67
0.61
0.60
0.61
0.94
0.86
0.75
0.84
0.80
0.71
0.87
0.79
0.68
0.82
0.82
0.75

18

Challenge

FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
robust
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
FCNNs
standard
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process
Learderboard
FCNNs
robust
FCNN+CRF
FCNN+CRF+post-process

0.86
0.74
0.85
0.87
0.69
0.83
0.86
0.70
0.83
0.86

0.83
0.72
0.80
0.83
0.60
0.66
0.73
0.61
0.66
0.73

0.76
0.67
0.70
0.76
0.54
0.58
0.61
0.54
0.57
0.62

0.93
0.62
0.87
0.92
0.57
0.85
0.89
0.58
0.85
0.89

0.86
0.63
0.80
0.87
0.55
0.71
0.75
0.57
0.71
0.76

0.80
0.60
0.63
0.77
0.50
0.56
0.66
0.49
0.50
0.64

0.81
0.94
0.84
0.83
0.97
0.85
0.84
0.96
0.85
0.84

0.81
0.86
0.81
0.81
0.75
0.70
0.78
0.74
0.69
0.78

0.74
0.77
0.80
0.77
0.67
0.67
0.66
0.67
0.71
0.68

3.1.7. Evaluating the effectiveness of fusing the segmentation results gotten in three views
We trained 3 segmentation models using patches and slices obtained in axial, coronal and sagittal views
respectively. During testing, we used these three models to segment brain images from 3 views and got three
segmentation results. The results of different views were fused and the evaluation results are shown in Table 7.
Evaluation results in Table 7 indicated that, for both Challenge and Leaderboard datasets, fusing the
segmentation results typically led to better segmentation performance without the post-processing procedure.
However, the improvement became insignificant after the post-processing procedure was applied to the
segmentation results.
Table.7 Evaluations of segmentation results obtained in axial, coronal, sagittal views before and after post-processing, and
evaluations of fusion results before and after post-processing (the sizes of patches used to train FCNNs were 33*33*3 and
65*65*3 respectively, n=5, and the number of patches used to train FCNNs was 5000*5*20)
Dataset
2013

Methods
FCNN+CRF

Challenge

fusing (FCNN+CRF)

axial
coronal
sagittal
fusing (FCNN+CRF)+post-process
axial
FCNN+CRF
coronal
sagittal
fusing (FCNN+CRF)
axial
FCNN+CRF+post-process
coronal
sagittal
fusing (FCNN+CRF)+post-process
FCNN+CRF+post-process

Learderboard

axial
coronal
sagittal

complete
0.85
0.82
0.83
0.85
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.83
0.80
0.80
0.84
0.86
0.86
0.84
0.86

Dice
PPV
Sensitivity
core enhancing complete core enhancing complete core enhancing
0.80
0.70
0.87
0.80
0.63
0.84
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.77
0.78
0.62
0.90
0.83
0.82
0.80
0.71
0.80
0.79
0.64
0.87
0.83
0.82
0.83
0.74
0.85
0.84
0.68
0.88
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.76
0.92
0.87
0.77
0.83
0.81
0.77
0.82
0.76
0.86
0.83
0.74
0.89
0.83
0.79
0.82
0.77
0.88
0.83
0.75
0.86
0.82
0.79
0.84
0.77
0.90
0.87
0.76
0.86
0.82
0.80
0.66
0.57
0.85
0.71
0.50
0.85
0.69
0.71
0.65
0.56
0.75
0.69
0.50
0.90
0.69
0.70
0.66
0.55
0.78
0.69
0.49
0.86
0.69
0.70
0.67
0.60
0.84
0.74
0.54
0.87
0.68
0.72
0.73
0.62
0.89
0.76
0.64
0.84
0.78
0.68
0.73
0.62
0.86
0.73
0.60
0.89
0.79
0.67
0.71
0.60
0.85
0.74
0.59
0.84
0.74
0.67
0.73
0.62
0.89
0.77
0.60
0.85
0.77
0.69

3.1.8. Comparison with other methods
Comparison results with other methods are summarized in Table 8. In particular, evaluation results of the top
ranked methods participated in the BRATS 2013, shown on the BRATS 2013 website, are summarized in Table 8,
along with the results of our method and other two state of art methods. Particularly, the method proposed by
Sergio Pereira et al [31] ranked first on the Challenge dataset and second on the Leaderboard dataset right now,
while our method ranked second on the Challenge dataset and first on the Leaderboard dataset right now. In
general, it took 2-4 min for one of the three views of our method to segment one subject’s imaging data. We do

19

not have an accurate estimation of the training time for our segmentation models since we used a shared GPU
server. On the shared GPU server, it took ~12 days to train our segmentation models.
Table. 8 Comparisons with other methods on BRATS 2013 dataset
Dataset

Challenge

Leaderboard

Methods
Nick Tustison
Raphael Meier
Syed Reza
Mohammad Havaei[30]
Sergio Pereira[31]
Our method(axial)
Our method(coronal)
Our method(sagittal)
Our method(fusing)
Nick Tustison
Liang Zhao
Raphael Meier
Mohammad Havaei[30]
Sergio Pereira[31]
Our method(axial)
Our method(coronal)
Our method(sagittal)
Our method(fusing)

complete
0.87
0.82
0.83
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.79
0.79
0.72
0.84
0.84
0.86
0.86
0.84
0.86

Dice
core
0.78
0.73
0.72
0.79
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.84
0.65
0.59
0.60
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.71
0.73

Positive Predictive Value
enhancing complete core
enhancing
0.74
0.85
0.74
0.69
0.69
0.76
0.78
0.71
0.72
0.82
0.81
0.70
0.73
0.89
0.79
0.68
0.77
0.88
0.87
0.74
0.76
0.92
0.87
0.77
0.76
0.86
0.83
0.74
0.77
0.88
0.83
0.75
0.77
0.90
0.87
0.76
0.53
0.83
0.70
0.51
0.47
0.77
0.55
0.50
0.53
0.65
0.62
0.48
0.57
0.88
0.79
0.54
0.62
0.85
0.82
0.60
0.62
0.89
0.76
0.64
0.62
0.86
0.73
0.60
0.60
0.85
0.74
0.59
0.62
0.89
0.77
0.60

complete
0.89
0.92
0.86
0.87
0.89
0.83
0.89
0.86
0.86
0.81
0.85
0.88
0.84
0.86
0.84
0.89
0.84
0.85

Sensitivity
core
enhancing
0.88
0.83
0.72
0.73
0.69
0.76
0.79
0.80
0.83
0.81
0.81
0.77
0.83
0.79
0.82
0.79
0.82
0.80
0.73
0.66
0.77
0.53
0.69
0.64
0.72
0.68
0.76
0.68
0.78
0.68
0.79
0.67
0.74
0.67
0.77
0.69

3.2. Segmentation performance on the BRATS 2015
The BRATS 2015 training dataset contains 54 LGG and 220 HGG, and its testing dataset contains 110 cases with
unknown grades. All the training cases in BRATS 2013 are reused in BRATS 2015 as a subset of its training
dataset. As what we have done in our experiments with BRATS 2013 dataset, we just used HGG training cases to
train our segmentation models in this section. We extracted 1000*5 patches from each of 220 HGG to train
FCNNs and initialed the CRF-RNN by the CRF-RNN trained by BRATS 2013 dataset. The whole network was
fine-tuned using slices in BRATS 2013 training dataset, which is a subset of BRATS 2015 training dataset. The
evaluation results of BRATS 2015 testing dataset are shown in Table 9, including evaluations of segmentation
results that were segmented by the models trained by BRATS 2013 training dataset and evaluations of
segmentation results that were segmented by the models trained in this section.
The results shown in Table. 9 indicated that fusing the segmentation results of multi-views could improve the
segmentation accuracy. These results also indicated that a larger training dataset might improve the segmentation
performance.
Table.9 Evaluation results of 110 testing cases in BRATS 2015 testing dataset (the sizes of image patches used to train
FCNNs were 33*33*3 and 65*65*3 respectively, n=5)
Methods
FCNN+CRF

axial
coronal
sagittal

Models
trained based
fusing (FCNN+CRF)
on the BRATS
axial
2013 training
FCNN+CRF+post-process
coronal
dataset
sagittal
fusing (FCNN+CRF)+post-process

complete
0.77
0.74
0.74
0.79
0.78
0.78
0.77
0.81

Dice
PPV
Sensitivity
core enhancing complete core enhancing complete core enhancing
0.56
0.52
0.85
0.71
0.46
0.74
0.53
0.67
0.53
0.48
0.70
0.69
0.44
0.84
0.50
0.65
0.54
0.49
0.74
0.67
0.43
0.78
0.52
0.66
0.56
0.56
0.82
0.78
0.52
0.79
0.50
0.68
0.64
0.58
0.87
0.75
0.57
0.73
0.61
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.77
0.68
0.58
0.84
0.63
0.63
0.62
0.57
0.80
0.71
0.56
0.78
0.60
0.63
0.65
0.60
0.87
0.79
0.60
0.78
0.61
0.65

20

FCNN+CRF

axial
coronal
sagittal

Models
trained based
fusing (FCNN+CRF)
on the BRATS
axial
2015 training
FCNN+CRF+post-process
coronal
dataset
sagittal
fusing (FCNN+CRF)+post-process

0.78
0.77
0.76
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.78
0.82

0.64
0.66
0.63
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.72

0.54
0.56
0.47
0.57
0.61
0.61
0.57
0.62

0.78
0.73
0.75
0.81
0.82
0.77
0.80
0.84

0.76
0.73
0.71
0.79
0.75
0.70
0.74
0.78

0.48
0.52
0.38
0.50
0.59
0.61
0.51
0.60

0.81
0.86
0.80
0.83
0.81
0.87
0.80
0.83

0.62
0.67
0.63
0.64
0.71
0.76
0.71
0.73

0.71
0.67
0.75
0.72
0.68
0.65
0.72
0.69

There were only 53 testing cases available during the BRATS 2015, but now there are 110 testing cases.
Therefore, we are not able to directly compare our method with the methods that participated in the BRATS 2015.
We are aware that K. Kamnitses et al [28] have published their evaluation results with 110 BRATS 2015 testing
cases. The comparisons with K. Kamnitses et al’s method are shown in Table 10.
Table. 10 Comparisons with other methods on BRATS 2015 dataset
Dataset

Methods

BRATS
2015 testing
dataset

DeepMedic+CRF[28]
Our method(axial)
Our method(coronal)
Our method(sagittal)
Our method(fusing)
Our FCNN(axial)+3D CRF
Our FCNN(coronal)+3D CRF
Our FCNN(sagittal)+3D CRF
Our FCNN+3D CRF (fusing)

complete
0.847
0.80
0.80
0.78
0.82
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.84

Dice
core
0.67
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.73

Positive Predictive Value
enhancing complete core
enhancing
0.629
0.85
0.848
0.634
0.61
0.82
0.75
0.59
0.61
0.77
0.70
0.61
0.57
0.80
0.74
0.51
0.62
0.84
0.78
0.60
0.62
0.88
0.75
0.62
0.62
0.88
0.75
0.62
0.60
0.88
0.75
0.59
0.62
0.89
0.76
0.63

complete
0.876
0.81
0.87
0.80
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.81
0.82

Sensitivity
core
enhancing
0.607
0.662
0.71
0.68
0.76
0.65
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.69
0.76
0.67
0.75
0.66
0.76
0.67
0.76
0.67

3.3. Segmentation performance on the BRATS 2016
We also participated in the BRATS 2016. However, during the competition we just segmented brain images in
axial view. Since the BRATS 2016 shares the same training dataset with BRATS 2015, we used the same
segmentation models trained based on the BRATS 2015 training dataset. The BRATS 2015 training dataset has
been pre-processed with rigid registration, bias field correction and skull stripping. However, the BRATS 2016
test dataset contains a number of unprocessed or partially pre-processed images [45], as shown in Fig. 9. To
reduce false positives caused by incomplete pre-processing, apart from the post-processing steps described in
Section 2.3.4, we manually placed rectangular bounding boxes around tumors in images and applied the
post-processing step 2 to the segmentation results. Among 19 teams participated in the BRATS 2016, we ranked
first on the multi-temporal evaluation. The ranking details of our method are shown in Table.11.

Fig.9 An example of partial skull stripping case in BRATS 2016 testing dataset. From left to right: Flair, T1c, T2

21

Table. 11 The ranking details of our method on different items on BRAST 2016 (including tie)
Items
Ranking

complete
4

Dice
core
3

Tumor Segmentation

enhancing
1

complete
7

Hausdorff
core
enhancing
6
2

Multi-temporal
evaluation
1

4. Discussions and Conclusion
In this study, we proposed a novel deep learning based brain tumor segmentation method by integrating Fully
Convolutional Neural Networks (FCNNs) and Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) in a unified framework. This
integrated model was designed to obtain tumor segmentation results with appearance and spatial consistency. In
our method, we used CRF-RNN to implement CRFs [18], facilitating easy training of both FCNNs and CRFs as
one deep network, rather than using CRFs as a post-processing step of FCNNs. Our integrated deep learning
model was trained in 3 steps, using image patches and slices respectively. In the first step, image patches were
used to train FCNNs. These image patches were randomly sampled from the training dataset and the same number
of image patches for each class was used as training image patches, in order to avoid the data imbalance problem.
In the second step, image slices were used to train the following CRF-RNN, with parameters of FCNNs fixed. In
the third step, image slices were used to fine-tune the whole network. Particularly, we train 3 segmentation models
using 2D image patches and slices obtained in axial, coronal and sagittal views respectively, and combine them to
segment brain tumors using a voting based fusion strategy. Our experimental results also indicated that the
integration of FCNNs and CRF-RNN could improve the segmentation robustness to parameters involved in the
model training, such as image patch size and the number of training image patches. Our experimental results also
demonstrated that a tumor segmentation model built upon Flair, T1c, and T2 scans achieved competitive
performance as those built upon Flair, T1, T1c, and T2 scans.
We also proposed a simple pre-processing strategy and a simple post-processing strategy. We pre-processed
each MR scan using N4ITK and intensity normalization, which normalized each MR image’s intensity mainly by
subtracting the gray-value of the highest frequency and dividing the robust deviation. The results shown in Fig. 1
and Fig. 2 demonstrated that the proposed intensity normalization method could make different MRI scans
comparable, i.e., similar intensity values characterize similar brain tissues across scans. We post-processed the
segmentation results by removing small 3D-connected regions and correcting false labels by simple thresholding
method. Our experimental results have demonstrated that these strategies could improve the tumor segmentation
performance.
Our method has achieved promising performance on the BRATS 2013 and BRATS 2015 testing dataset.
Different from other top ranked methods, our method could achieve competitive performance with only 3 imaging
modalities (Flair, T1c, and T2), rather than 4 (Flair, T1, T1c, and T2). We also participated in the BRATS 2016
and our method ranked first on its multi-temporal evaluation.

22

Our method is built upon 2D FCNNs and CRF-RNN to achieve computational efficiency. For training
CRF-RNN and fine-tuning the integrated FCNNs and CRF-RNN, we use image slices as training data. However,
in image slices, the numbers of pixels for different classes are different, which may worsen the segmentation
performance of the trained network. To partially overcome the imbalanced training data problem, we trained
CRF-RNN with the parameters of FCNNs were fixed so that the CRF-RNN are trained to optimize the appearance
and spatial consistency of segmentation results. Such a strategy in conjunct with a fine-tuning of the whole
network with a small learning rate improved the tumor segmentation performance. However, 2D CNNs are not
equipped to take full advantage of 3D information of the MRI data [28, 29]. Our experimental results have
demonstrated adopting 3D CRF as a post-processing step could improve the tumor segmentation performance.
Our ongoing study is to build a fully 3D network to further improve the tumor segmentation performance.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China
(2015AA020504), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61572499, 61421004,
61473296, and NIH grants EB022573, CA189523.

References
[1] S. Bauer, R. Wiest, L.-P. Nolte, and M. Reyes, "A survey of MRI-based medical image analysis for brain tumor studies,"
Physics in medicine and biology, vol. 58, pp. 97-129, 2013.
[2] M. Goetz, C. Weber, F. Binczyk, J. Polanska, R. Tarnawski, B. Bobek-Billewicz, et al., "DALSA: domain adaptation for
supervised learning from sparsely annotated MR images," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 35, pp. 184-196,
2016.
[3] B. H. Menze, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, K. Farahani, J. Kirby, et al., "The multimodal brain tumor image
segmentation benchmark (BRATS)," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 34, pp. 1993-2024, 2015.
[4] A. Gooya, K. M. Pohl, M. Bilello, L. Cirillo, G. Biros, E. R. Melhem, et al., "GLISTR: glioma image segmentation and
registration," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 31, pp. 1941-1954, 2012.
[5] M. B. Cuadra, C. Pollo, A. Bardera, O. Cuisenaire, J.-G. Villemure, and J.-P. Thiran, "Atlas-based segmentation of
pathological MR brain images using a model of lesion growth," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 23, pp.
1301-1314, 2004.
[6] B. H. Menze, K. Van Leemput, D. Lashkari, M.-A. Weber, N. Ayache, and P. Golland, "A generative model for brain
tumor segmentation in multi-modal images," in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and
Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2010, pp. 151-159.
[7] M. Prastawa, E. Bullitt, S. Ho, and G. Gerig, "A brain tumor segmentation framework based on outlier detection,"
Medical image analysis, vol. 8, pp. 275-283, 2004.
[8] M. Goetz, C. Weber, J. Bloecher, B. Stieltjes, H.-P. Meinzer, and K. Maier-Hein, "Extremely randomized trees based
brain tumor segmentation," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 6-11, 2014.
[9] S. M. S. Reza and K. M. Iftekharuddin, "Improved brain tumor tissue segmentation using texture features," Proceedings
MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 27-30, 2014.
[10] J. Kleesiek, A. Biller, G. Urban, U. Kothe, M. Bendszus, and F. Hamprecht, "Ilastik for multi-modal brain tumor
segmentation," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 12-17, 2014.
[11] S. Ruan, S. Lebonvallet, A. Merabet, and J.-M. Constans, "Tumor segmentation from a multispectral MRI images by
using support vector machine classification," in 2007 4th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From
Nano to Macro, 2007, pp. 1236-1239.
[12] H. Li and Y. Fan, "Label propagation with robust initialization for brain tumor segmentation," in 2012 9th IEEE
International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2012, pp. 1715-1718.

23

[13] H. Li, M. Song, and Y. Fan, "Segmentation of brain tumors in multi-parametric MR images via robust statistic
information propagation," in Asian Conference on Computer Vision, 2010, pp. 606-617.
[14] R. Meier, S. Bauer, J. Slotboom, R. Wiest, and M. Reyes, "Appearance- and context-sensitive features for brain tumor
segmentation," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 20-26, 2014.
[15] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, "Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks," in
Advances in neural information processing systems, 2012, pp. 1097-1105.
[16] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, "Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic
segmentation," in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2014, pp. 580-587.
[17] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, "Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation," in Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 3431-3440.
[18] S. Zheng, S. Jayasumana, B. Romera-Paredes, V. Vineet, Z. Su, D. Du, et al., "Conditional random fields as recurrent
neural networks," in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 1529-1537.
[19] Z. Liu, X. Li, P. Luo, C.-C. Loy, and X. Tang, "Semantic image segmentation via deep parsing network," in Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 1377-1385.
[20] D. Zikic, Y. Ioannou, M. Brown, and A. Criminisi, "Segmentation of brain tumor tissues with convolutional neural
networks," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 36-39, 2014.
[21] A. Davy, M. Havaei, D. Warde-farley, A. Biard, L. Tran, P.-M. Jodoin, et al., "Brain tumor segmentation with deep
neural networks," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 1-5, 2014.
[22] G. Urban, M. Bendszus, F. Hamprecht, and J. Kleesiek, "Multi-modal brain tumor segmentatioin using deep
convolutional neural networks," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 31-35, 2014.
[23] P. Dvorak and B. H. Menze, "Structured prediction with convolutional neural networks for multimodal brain tumor
segmentation," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 13-24, 2015.
[24] M. Havaei, F. Dutil, C. Pal, H. Larochelle, and P.-M. Jodoin, "A convolutional neural network approach to brain tumor
segmentation," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 29-33, 2015.
[25] S. Pereira, A. Pinto, V. Alves, and C. A. Silva, "Deep convolutional neural networks for the segmentatin of gliomas in
multi-sequence MRI," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 52-55, 2015.
[26] M. Agn, O. Puonti, I. Law, P. M. a. Rosenschold, and K. V. Leemput, "Brain tumor segmentation by a generative model
with a prior on tumor shape," Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), pp. 1-4, 2015.
[27] K. Vaidhya, R. Santhosh, S. Thirunavukkarasu, V. Alex, and G. Krishnamurthi, "Multi-modal brain tumor segmentation
using stacked denoising autoencoders," in Proceedings MICCAI BraTS (Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge), 2015,
pp. 60-64.
[28] K. Kamnitsas, C. Ledig, V. F. Newcombe, J. P. Simpson, A. D. Kane, D. K. Menon, et al., "Efficient multi-scale 3D
CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation," Medical Image Analysis, vol. 36, pp. 61-78,
2017.
[29] D. Yi, M. Zhou, Z. Chen, and O. Gevaert, "3-D Convolutional Neural Networks for Glioblastoma Segmentation," arXiv
preprint arXiv:1611.04534, 2016.
[30] M. Havaei, A. Davy, D. Warde-Farley, A. Biard, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, et al., "Brain tumor segmentation with deep
neural networks," Medical image analysis, vol. 35, pp. 18-31, 2017.
[31] S. Pereira, A. Pinto, V. Alves, and C. A. Silva, "Brain tumor segmentation using convolutional neural networks in MRI
images," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 35, pp. 1240-1251, 2016.
[32] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, "Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition," arXiv preprint
arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
[33] L.-C. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille, "Semantic image segmentation with deep
convolutional nets and fully connected crfs," arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7062, 2014.
[34] A. Prasoon, K. Petersen, C. Igel, F. Lauze, E. Dam, and M. Nielsen, "Deep feature learning for knee cartilage
segmentation using a triplanar convolutional neural network," in International conference on medical image computing
and computer-assisted intervention, 2013, pp. 246-253.
[35] K. Fritscher, P. Raudaschl, P. Zaffino, M. F. Spadea, G. C. Sharp, and R. Schubert, "Deep Neural Networks for Fast
Segmentation of 3D Medical Images," in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and
Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2016, pp. 158-165.
[36] A. A. A. Setio, F. Ciompi, G. Litjens, P. Gerke, C. Jacobs, S. J. van Riel, et al., "Pulmonary nodule detection in CT
images: false positive reduction using multi-view convolutional networks," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol.
35, pp. 1160-1169, 2016.
[37] X. Zhao, Y. Wu, G. Song, Z. Li, Y. Fan, and Y. Zhang, "Brain Tumor Segmentation Using a Fully Convolutional Neural
Network with Conditional Random Fields," in International Workshop on Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis,
Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries, 2016, pp. 75-87.

24

[38] W. Zhang, R. Li, H. Deng, L. Wang, W. Lin, S. Ji, et al., "Deep convolutional neural networks for multi-modality
isointense infant brain image segmentation," NeuroImage, vol. 108, pp. 214-224, 2015.
[39] P. Moeskops, M. A. Viergever, A. M. Mendrik, L. S. de Vries, M. J. Benders, and I. Išgum, "Automatic segmentation of
MR brain images with a convolutional neural network," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 35, pp. 1252-1261,
2016.
[40] A. de Brebisson and G. Montana, "Deep neural networks for anatomical brain segmentation," in Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2015, pp. 20-28.
[41] N. J. Tustison, B. B. Avants, P. A. Cook, Y. Zheng, A. Egan, P. A. Yushkevich, et al., "N4ITK: improved N3 bias
correction," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 29, pp. 1310-1320, 2010.
[42] R. D. Fields, "Change in the brain's white matter," Science, vol. 330, pp. 768-769, 2010.
[43] P. Krahenbuhl and V. Koltun, "Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials," NIPS, 2011.
[44] Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J. Long, R. Girshick, et al., "Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast
feature embedding," in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2014, pp. 675-678.
[45] L. Le Folgoc, A. V. Nori, S. Ancha, and A. Criminisi, "Lifted Auto-Context Forests for Brain Tumour Segmentation," in
International Workshop on Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries, 2016, pp.
171-183.

25

