Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition
9 May 2026 – 14 May 2026 · Cape Town, South Africa
566-02-007 ISMRM Abstract

Diverse impact of intensity normalization techniques on white matter hyperintensity quantification

Primary: Neuro - White Matter
Secondary: Analysis Methods - Data Processing
566-02-007 · MRI Markers of Dementia · Wednesday, 13 May, 9:15 AM–10:10 AM · Digital Posters Row G
Keywords: Image processing White Matter Hyperintensities Intensity Normalization Lesion Volume
Accepted
Ethan C Draper 1, Rachel Wagner2,3, Udunna Anazodo4
1Montreal Neurological Institute, Montreal, Canada
2Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada
3School of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
4McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Presenting Author: Ethan C Draper

Synopsis

Motivation:
Goals:
Approach:
Results:
Full abstract & presentation

The full text, figures, and any recorded presentation for this abstract are not shown here. Log in if you are a member or registered attendee with access.

Full abstracts, figures, and presentations for Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition are available to registered attendees. This content becomes freely available to the public roughly two years after the meeting.

To request or purchase access, contact the ISMRM Central Office at info@ismrm.org.

Log in

References

1. Rahmani, M. et al. Evolution of white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods and implementation over the past two decades; An incomplete shift towards deep learning. Brain Imaging Behav. 18, 1310–1322 (2024).
2. Dadar, M. et al. Validation of a regression technique for segmentation of white matter hyperintensities in Alzheimer’s Disease. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 36, 1758–1768 (2017).
3. García-Lorenzo, D., Francis, S., Narayanan, S., Arnold, D. L. & Collins, D. L. Review of automatic segmentation methods of multiple sclerosis white matter lesions on conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Image Anal. 17, 1–18 (2013).
4. Griffanti, L. et al. BIANCA (Brain Intensity AbNormality Classification Algorithm): A new tool for automated segmentation of white matter hyperintensities. NeuroImage 141, 191–205 (2016).
5. Anbeek, P., Vincken, K. L., van Osch, M. J. P., Bisschops, R. H. C. & van der Grond, J. Probabilistic segmentation of white matter lesions in MR imaging. NeuroImage 21, 1037–1044 (2004).
6. Steenwijk, M. D. et al. Accurate white matter lesion segmentation by k nearest neighbor classification with tissue type priors (kNN-TTPs). NeuroImage Clin. 3, 462–469 (2013).
7. Wardlaw, J. M., Valdés Hernández, M. C. & Muñoz‐Maniega, S. What are white matter hyperintensities made of? J. Am. Heart Assoc. 4, e001140 (2015).
8. Reinhold, J. C., Dewey, B. E., Carass, A. & Prince, J. L. Evaluating the impact of intensity normalization on MR image synthesis. Proc. SPIE-- Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 10949, 109493H (2019).
9. Duenweg, S. R. et al. Comparison of intensity normalization methods in prostate, brain, and breast cancer multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Front. Oncol. 15, 1433444 (2025).
10. Khodabakhshi, Z. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging radiomic features stability in brain metastases: Impact of image preprocessing, image-, and feature-level harmonization. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 30, 100585 (2024).
11. Duchesne, S. et al. Structural and functional multi-platform MRI series of a single human volunteer over more than fifteen years. Sci. Data 6, 245 (2019).
12. Duchesne, S. et al. The Canadian dementia imaging protocol: Harmonizing national cohorts. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 49, 456–465 (2019).
13. Potvin, O. et al. The Canadian dementia imaging protocol: Harmonization validity for morphometry measurements. NeuroImage Clin. 24, 101943 (2019).
14. Kuijf, H. et al. Data of the white matter hyperintensity (WMH) segmentation challenge. DataverseNL https://doi.org/10.34894/AECRSD (2022). [doi]
15. Kuijf, H. J. et al. Standardized assessment of automatic segmentation of white matter hyperintensities and results of the WMH segmentation challenge. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 38, 2556–2568 (2019).
16. Petersen, R. C. et al. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Neurology 74, 201–209 (2010).
17. Bezdek, J. C., Ehrlich, R. & Full, W. FCM: The fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. Comput. Geosci. 10, 191–203 (1984).
18. Shinohara, R. T. et al. Statistical normalization techniques for magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage Clin. 6, 9–19 (2014).
19. Reinhold, J. Algorithm descriptions. Intensity-normalization 2.2.4 documentation https://intensity-normalization.readthedocs.io/en/latest/algorithm.html (2025).
20. Mojiri Forooshani, P. et al. Deep Bayesian networks for uncertainty estimation and adversarial resistance of white matter hyperintensity segmentation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 43, 2089–2108 (2022).
21. Fischl, B. FreeSurfer. NeuroImage 62, 774–781 (2012).
22. Ammari, S., et al. Influence of magnetic field strength on magnetic resonance imaging radiomics features in brain imaging, an in vitro and in vivo study. Front. Oncol. 10 (2021)
23. Carré, A., et al. Standardization of brain MR images across machines and protocols: bridging the gap for MRI-based radiomics. Sci. Rep. 10, 12340 (2020).

Cite this abstract

http://echo.ismrm.org/p/ISMRM2026/566-02-007