4.7 Article

Standardized evaluation methodology and reference database for evaluating IVUS image segmentation

Journal

COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL IMAGING AND GRAPHICS
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 70-90

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2013.07.001

Keywords

IVUS (intravascular ultrasound); Evaluation framework; Algorithm comparison; Image segmentation

Funding

  1. ARTREAT [FP7-224297]
  2. MDEIE, Canada
  3. Boston Scientific, Fremont, CA, USA
  4. NSERC [138570]
  5. Boston Scientific, USA
  6. MICINN
  7. NSC [101-2628-E-011-006-MY3]
  8. National Institutes of Health, U.S.A. [R01EB004640, R01HL063373]
  9. Czech Ministry of Health, Czech Republic [IGA NR9214-3]
  10. CONACYT
  11. NSF [DMS-0915242]
  12. UH Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Endowment Fund
  13. [TIN2009-14404-C02]
  14. [TIN2012-38187-C03-01]
  15. [SGR00696]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes an evaluation framework that allows a standardized and quantitative comparison of IVUS lumen and media segmentation algorithms. This framework has been introduced at the MICCAI 2011 Computing and Visualization for (Intra)Vascular Imaging (CVII) workshop, comparing the results of eight teams that participated. We describe the available data-base comprising of multi-center, multi-vendor and multi-frequency IVUS datasets, their acquisition, the creation of the reference standard and the evaluation measures. The approaches address segmentation of the lumen, the media, or both borders; semi- or fully-automatic operation; and 2-D vs. 3-D methodology. Three performance measures for quantitative analysis have been proposed. The results of the evaluation indicate that segmentation of the vessel lumen and media is possible with an accuracy that is comparable to manual annotation when semi-automatic methods are used, as well as encouraging results can be obtained also in case of fully-automatic segmentation. The analysis performed in this paper also highlights the challenges in IVUS segmentation that remains to be solved. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available