4.7 Article

Atlas-driven lung lobe segmentation in volumetric X-ray CT images

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 1-16

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2005.859209

关键词

anatomic atlas; lung lobar fissures; pulmonary imaging; segmentation

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL64368, HL60158] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL064368, R01HL060158] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging is routinely used for clinical pulmonary applications. Since lung function varies regionally and because pulmonary disease is usually not uniformly distributed in the lungs, it is useful to study the lungs on a lobe-by-lobe basis. Thus, it is important to segment not only the lungs, but the lobar fissures as well. In this paper, we demonstrate the use of an anatomic pulmonary atlas, encoded with a priori information on the pulmonary anatomy, to automatically segment the oblique lobar fissures. Sixteen volumetric CT scans from 16 subjects are used to construct the pulmonary atlas. A ridgeness measure is applied to the original CT images to enhance the fissure contrast. Fissure detection is accomplished in two stages: an initial fissure search and a final fissure search. A fuzzy reasoning system is used in the fissure search to analyze information from three sources: the image intensity, an anatomic smoothness constraint, and the atlas-based search initialization. Our method has been tested on 22 volumetric thin-slice CT scans from 12 subjects, and the results are compared to manual tracings. Averaged across all 22 data sets, the RMS error between the automatically segmented and manually segmented fissures is 1.96 +/- 0.71 mm and the mean of the similarity indices between the manually defined and computer-defined lobe regions is 0.988. The results indicate a strong agreement between the automatic and manual lobe segmentations.

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

4.7
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