Literature DB >> 18769967

Semi-automated phalanx bone segmentation using the expectation maximization algorithm.

Austin J Ramme1, Nicole DeVries, Nicole A Kallemyn, Vincent A Magnotta, Nicole M Grosland.   

Abstract

Medical imaging technologies have allowed for in vivo exploration and evaluation of the human musculoskeletal system. Three-dimensional bone models generated using image-segmentation techniques provide a means to optimize individualized orthopedic surgical procedures using engineering analyses. However, many of the current segmentation techniques are not clinically practical due to the required time and human intervention. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate the use of an expectation maximization (EM) algorithm to segment the hand phalanx bones, and hypothesize that this semi-automated technique will improve the efficiency while providing similar definitions as compared to a manual rater. Our results show a relative overlap of the proximal, middle, and distal phalanx bones of 0.83, 0.79, and 0.72 for the EM technique when compared to validated manual segmentations. The EM segmentations were also compared to 3D surface scans of the cadaveric specimens, which resulted in distance maps showing an average distance for the proximal, middle, and distal phalanx bones of 0.45, 0.46, and 0.51 mm, respectively. The EM segmentation improved on the segmentation speed of the manual techniques by a factor of eight. Overall, the manual segmentations had greater relative overlap metric values, which suggests that the manual segmentations are a better fit to the actual surface of the bone. As shown by the comparison to the bone surface scans, the EM technique provides a similar representation of the anatomic structure and offers an increase in efficiency that could help to reduce the time needed for defining anatomical structures from CT scans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18769967      PMCID: PMC2745490          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-008-9151-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  21 in total

1.  Atlas-based segmentation of bone structures to support the virtual planning of hip operations.

Authors:  J Ehrhardt; H Handels; T Malina; B Strathmann; W Plötz; S J Pöppl
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 2.  Segmentation techniques for analysis of bone by three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging.

Authors:  T Dufresne
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.285

3.  Segmentation of carpal bones from CT images using skeletally coupled deformable models.

Authors:  Thomas B Sebastian; Hüseyin Tek; Joseph J Crisco; Benjamin B Kimia
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 8.545

4.  Structural MR image processing using the BRAINS2 toolbox.

Authors:  Vincent A Magnotta; Greg Harris; Nancy C Andreasen; Daniel S O'Leary; William T C Yuh; Dan Heckel
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.790

5.  Automated segmentation of acetabulum and femoral head from 3-D CT images.

Authors:  Reza A Zoroofi; Yoshinobu Sato; Toshihiko Sasama; Takashi Nishii; Nobuhiko Sugano; Kazuo Yonenobu; Hideki Yoshikawa; Takahiro Ochi; Shinichi Tamura
Journal:  IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed       Date:  2003-12

6.  A deformable-model approach to semi-automatic segmentation of CT images demonstrated by application to the spinal canal.

Authors:  Stuart S C Burnett; George Starkschalla; Craig W Stevens; Zhongxing Liao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell's demons.

Authors:  J P Thirion
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 8.545

8.  A physics-based coordinate transformation for 3-D image matching.

Authors:  M H Davis; A Khotanzad; D P Flamig; S E Harms
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  [Bone segmentation in human CT images].

Authors:  Yinbo Li; Bo Hong; Shangkai Gao; Kai Liu
Journal:  Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2004-04

10.  Automated bony region identification using artificial neural networks: reliability and validation measurements.

Authors:  Esther E Gassman; Stephanie M Powell; Nicole A Kallemeyn; Nicole A Devries; Kiran H Shivanna; Vincent A Magnotta; Austin J Ramme; Brian D Adams; Nicole M Grosland
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 2.199

View more
  5 in total

1.  A study on the feasibility of active contours on automatic CT bone segmentation.

Authors:  Phan T H Truc; Tae-Seong Kim; Sungyoung Lee; Young-Koo Lee
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Toward the development of virtual surgical tools to aid orthopaedic FE analyses.

Authors:  Srinivas C Tadepalli; Kiran H Shivanna; Vincent A Magnotta; Nicole A Kallemeyn; Nicole M Grosland
Journal:  EURASIP J Adv Signal Process       Date:  2010-01-01

3.  Mechanical Analysis of Posterior Pedicle Screw System Placement and Internal Fixation in the Treatment of Lumbar Fractures.

Authors:  Shengkai Mu; Jingxu Wang; Shuyi Gong
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  IA-FEMesh: an open-source, interactive, multiblock approach to anatomic finite element model development.

Authors:  Nicole M Grosland; Kiran H Shivanna; Vincent A Magnotta; Nicole A Kallemeyn; Nicole A DeVries; Srinivas C Tadepalli; Curtis Lisle
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source scanning (dual-energy CT scan vs. high resolution laser scanning) and 3D geometric morphometric validation.

Authors:  Annalisa Pietrobelli; Rita Sorrentino; Veronica Notariale; Stefano Durante; Stefano Benazzi; Damiano Marchi; Maria Giovanna Belcastro
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 2.921

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.