4.6 Article

Automated aortic calcium scoring on low-dose chest computed tomography

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 714-723

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1118/1.3284211

关键词

blood vessels; cardiology; computerised tomography; feature extraction; image classification; image segmentation; lung; medical image processing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods: The system was trained and tested on scans from participants of a lung cancer screening trial. A total of 433 low-dose, non-ECG-synchronized, noncontrast-enhanced 16 detector row examinations of the chest was randomly divided into 340 training and 93 test data sets. A first observer manually identified aortic calcifications on training and test scans. A second observer did the same on the test scans only. First, a multiatlas-based segmentation method was developed to delineate the aorta. Segmented volume was thresholded and potential calcifications (candidate objects) were extracted by three-dimensional connected component labeling. Due to image resolution and noise, in rare cases extracted candidate objects were connected to the spine. They were separated into a part outside and parts inside the aorta, and only the latter was further analyzed. All candidate objects were represented by 63 features describing their size, position, and texture. Subsequently, a two-stage classification with a selection of features and k-nearest neighbor classifiers was performed. Based on the detected aortic calcifications, total calcium volume score was determined for each subject. Results: The computer system correctly detected, on the average, 945 mm(3) out of 965 mm(3) (97.9%) calcified plaque volume in the aorta with an average of 64 mm(3) of false positive volume per scan. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was rho=0.960 between the system and the first observer compared to rho=0.961 between the two observers. Conclusions: Automatic calcium scoring in the aorta thus appears feasible with good correlation between manual and automatic scoring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据