4.2 Article

A deep learning algorithm proposal to automatic pharyngeal airway detection and segmentation on CBCT images

期刊

ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 117-123

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12480

关键词

artificial intelligence; cone‐ beam computed tomography; deep learning; pharyngeal airway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated an automatic segmentation algorithm for pharyngeal airway in CBCT images using a deep learning AI system. The AI algorithm achieved a high accuracy in segmenting the pharyngeal airway, providing a useful tool for quick and easy calculation of airway volume for clinical applications.
Objectives This study aims to evaluate an automatic segmentation algorithm for pharyngeal airway in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images using a deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) system. Setting and Sample Population Archives of the CBCT images were reviewed, and the data of 306 subjects with the pharyngeal airway were included in this retrospective study. Material and Methods A machine learning algorithm, based on Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), did the segmentation of the pharyngeal airway on serial CBCT images. Semi-automatic software (ITK-SNAP) was used to manually generate the airway, and the results were compared with artificial intelligence. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Intersection over Union (IoU) were used as the accuracy of segmentation in comparing the measurements of human measurements and artificial intelligence algorithms. Results The human observer found the average volume of the pharyngeal airway to be 18.08 cm(3) and artificial intelligence to be 17.32 cm(3). For pharyngeal airway segmentation, a dice ratio of 0.919 and a weighted IoU of 0.993 is achieved. Conclusions In this study, a successful AI algorithm that automatically segments the pharyngeal airway from CBCT images was created. It can be useful in the quick and easy calculation of pharyngeal airway volume from CBCT images for clinical application.

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

4.2
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