1 / 18

Comparison of Human and M-rep Kidneys Segmented from CT Images

This study compares the segmentation of human and M-rep kidneys from CT images. The comparison metrics include volume overlap and mean surface separation. The limitations and results of the comparison are discussed.

kfuller
Download Presentation

Comparison of Human and M-rep Kidneys Segmented from CT Images

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Human and M-rep Kidneys Segmented from CT Images James Chen, Gregg Tracton, Manjari Rao, Sarang Joshi, Steve Pizer, Joshua Stough, and Ed Chaney University of North Carolina Chapel Hill University of North Carolina

  2. Methods Target Images: 12 planning CT images from archives (24 kidneys) Human (A and B) segmentation: Careful slice-by-slice pixel painting (voxel-based) Computer segmentation: Deformable m-reps (yields smooth surface) Comparison metrics reported here: Volume overlap and mean surface separation

  3. The median volume overlap is measured by the overlap volume divided by the union of the two volumes being compared. University of North Carolina

  4. Image Challenges Poor contrast (no contrast agent) Crowded soft tissue environment

  5. Image Challenges Motion artifacts

  6. Image Challenges Three human segmentations of renal pelvis Image variability near renal pelvis

  7. Three Stages of M-rep Segmentation Similarity + elongation Atom deformation Boundary displacement Implied surface after each scale of segmentation

  8. Result after Final Stage University of North Carolina

  9. Limitations of Comparison Segmented structures represented as collections of whole 2 mm3 voxels Conversion of m-rep surfaces to voxels introduces a bias that favors humans Sensitivity of distance ~ 2 mm Best possible volume overlap is ~ 95%

  10. Results: Volume Overlap Human A to Human B: 90%-96% M-rep to Human A or B: 85%-95%

  11. Human A vs B volume overlap Kidney Number Case University of North Carolina

  12. 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Volume Overlap (%) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 First Atom Boundary M-rep vs Human A volume overlap Case University of North Carolina

  13. University of North Carolina

  14. Results: Average Surface Separation Human A to Human B: Within one voxel M-rep to Human A or B: Within one voxel* *with one exception

  15. Outlier Case Image Human M-rep M-rep Image Human University of North Carolina

  16. Who is right (Human or M-rep)? Movie Loop

  17. Conclusions In this study m-reps compared with humans A and B as well as A compared with B.

  18. Sunset at Portsmouth Island University of North Carolina

More Related