4.6 Article

Automated lung segmentation in X-ray computed tomography: Development and evaluation of a heuristic threshold-based scheme

期刊

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 1224-1236

出版社

ASSOC UNIV RADIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00380-5

关键词

lung; image segmentation; computed tomography (CT); medical image processing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale and Objectives. To develop and evaluate a reliable, fully-automated lung segmentation scheme for application in X-ray computed tomography. Materials and Methods. The automated scheme was heuristically developed using a slice-based, pixel-value threshold and two sets of classification rules. Features used in the rules include size, circularity, and location. The segmentation scheme operates slice-by-slice and performs three key operations: (1) image preprocessing to remove background pixels, (2) computation and application of a pixel-value threshold to identify lung tissue, and (3) refinement of the initial segmented regions to prune incorrectly detected airways and separate fused right and left lungs. Results. The performance of the automated segmentation scheme was evaluated using 101 computed tomography cases (91 thick slice, 10 thin slice scans). The 91 thick cases were pre- and post-surgery from 50 patients and were not independent. The automated scheme successfully segmented 94.0% of the 2,969 thick slice images and 97.6% of the 1,161 thin slice images. The mean difference of the total lung volumes calculated by the automated scheme and functional residual capacity plus 60% inspiratory capacity was -24.7 +/- 508.1 mL. The mean differences of the total lung volumes calculated by the automated scheme and an established, commonly used semi-automated scheme were 95.2 +/- 52.5 mL and -27.7 +/- 66.9 mL for the thick and thin slice cases, respectively. Conclusion. This simple, fully-automated lung segmentation scheme provides an objective tool to facilitate lung segmentation from computed tomography scans.

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