We have located links that may give you full text access.
Spatial fuzzy c-means thresholding for semiautomated calculation of percentage lung ventilated volume from hyperpolarized gas and 1 H MRI.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging : JMRI 2018 March
PURPOSE: To develop an image-processing pipeline for semiautomated (SA) and reproducible analysis of hyperpolarized gas lung ventilation and proton anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan pairs. To compare results from the software for total lung volume (TLV), ventilated volume (VV), and percentage lung ventilated volume (%VV) calculation to the current manual "basic" method and a K-means segmentation method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients were imaged with hyperpolarized 3 He and same-breath lung 1 H MRI at 1.5T and six other patients were scanned with hyperpolarized 129 Xe and separate-breath 1 H MRI. One expert observer and two users with experience in lung image segmentation carried out the image analysis. Spearman (R), Intraclass (ICC) correlations, Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA), and Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC) between output lung volumes were calculated.
RESULTS: When comparing values of %VV, agreement between observers improved using the SA method (mean; R = 0.984, ICC = 0.980, LOA = 7.5%) when compared to the basic method (mean; R = 0.863, ICC = 0.873, LOA = 14.2%) nonsignificantly (pR = 0.25, pICC = 0.25, and pLOA = 0.50 respectively). DSC of VV and TLV masks significantly improved (P < 0.01) using the SA method (mean; DSCVV = 0.973, DSCTLV = 0.980) when compared to the basic method (mean; DSCVV = 0.947, DSCTLV = 0.957). K-means systematically overestimated %VV when compared to both basic (mean overestimation = 5.0%) and SA methods (mean overestimation = 9.7%), and had poor agreement with the other methods (mean ICC; K-means vs. basic = 0.685, K-means vs. SA = 0.740).
CONCLUSION: A semiautomated image processing software was developed that improves interobserver agreement and correlation of lung ventilation volume percentage when compared to the currently used basic method and provides more consistent segmentations than the K-means method.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:640-646.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients were imaged with hyperpolarized 3 He and same-breath lung 1 H MRI at 1.5T and six other patients were scanned with hyperpolarized 129 Xe and separate-breath 1 H MRI. One expert observer and two users with experience in lung image segmentation carried out the image analysis. Spearman (R), Intraclass (ICC) correlations, Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA), and Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC) between output lung volumes were calculated.
RESULTS: When comparing values of %VV, agreement between observers improved using the SA method (mean; R = 0.984, ICC = 0.980, LOA = 7.5%) when compared to the basic method (mean; R = 0.863, ICC = 0.873, LOA = 14.2%) nonsignificantly (pR = 0.25, pICC = 0.25, and pLOA = 0.50 respectively). DSC of VV and TLV masks significantly improved (P < 0.01) using the SA method (mean; DSCVV = 0.973, DSCTLV = 0.980) when compared to the basic method (mean; DSCVV = 0.947, DSCTLV = 0.957). K-means systematically overestimated %VV when compared to both basic (mean overestimation = 5.0%) and SA methods (mean overestimation = 9.7%), and had poor agreement with the other methods (mean ICC; K-means vs. basic = 0.685, K-means vs. SA = 0.740).
CONCLUSION: A semiautomated image processing software was developed that improves interobserver agreement and correlation of lung ventilation volume percentage when compared to the currently used basic method and provides more consistent segmentations than the K-means method.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:640-646.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app