4.3 Article

Automated Cephalometry: System Performance Reliability Using Landmark-Dependent Criteria

期刊

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
卷 79, 期 6, 页码 1037-1046

出版社

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/092908-508R.1

关键词

Cephalograms; Automatic recognition; Landmarks

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture [14370695, 14370696, 16791284]
  2. Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)
  3. 21st-century Centers of Excellence (COE) program
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [14370695, 16791284, 14370696] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate reliability of a system that performs automatic recognition of anatomic landmarks and adjacent structures on lateral cephalograms using land mark-dependent criteria unique to each landmark. Materials and Methods: To evaluate the reliability of the system, the system was used to examine 65 lateral cephalograms. The area of each system-identified anatomic structure surrounding the landmark and the position of each system-identified landmark were compared with norms using confidence ellipses with alpha = .01, which were derived from the scattergrams of 100 estimates obtained according to the method reported by Baumrind and Frantz. When the system-identified area overlapped with the norm area, anatomic structure recognition was considered successful. In addition, when the system-identified point was located within the norm area, landmark identification was considered successful. Based on these judgment criteria, success rates were calculated for all landmarks. Results: The system successfully identified all specified anatomic structures in all the images and determined the positions of the landmarks with a mean success rate of 88% (range, 77%-100%). Conclusion: With the incorporation of the rational assessment criteria provided by confidence ellipses, the proposed system was confirmed to be reliable. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:1037-1046.)

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

4.3
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