Literature DB >> 19211338

Comparison and evaluation of methods for liver segmentation from CT datasets.

Tobias Heimann1, Bram van Ginneken, Martin A Styner, Yulia Arzhaeva, Volker Aurich, Christian Bauer, Andreas Beck, Christoph Becker, Reinhard Beichel, György Bekes, Fernando Bello, Gerd Binnig, Horst Bischof, Alexander Bornik, Peter M M Cashman, Ying Chi, Andrés Cordova, Benoit M Dawant, Márta Fidrich, Jacob D Furst, Daisuke Furukawa, Lars Grenacher, Joachim Hornegger, Dagmar Kainmüller, Richard I Kitney, Hidefumi Kobatake, Hans Lamecker, Thomas Lange, Jeongjin Lee, Brian Lennon, Rui Li, Senhu Li, Hans-Peter Meinzer, Gábor Nemeth, Daniela S Raicu, Anne-Mareike Rau, Eva M van Rikxoort, Mikaël Rousson, László Rusko, Kinda A Saddi, Günter Schmidt, Dieter Seghers, Akinobu Shimizu, Pieter Slagmolen, Erich Sorantin, Grzegorz Soza, Ruchaneewan Susomboon, Jonathan M Waite, Andreas Wimmer, Ivo Wolf.   

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison study between 10 automatic and six interactive methods for liver segmentation from contrast-enhanced CT images. It is based on results from the "MICCAI 2007 Grand Challenge" workshop, where 16 teams evaluated their algorithms on a common database. A collection of 20 clinical images with reference segmentations was provided to train and tune algorithms in advance. Participants were also allowed to use additional proprietary training data for that purpose. All teams then had to apply their methods to 10 test datasets and submit the obtained results. Employed algorithms include statistical shape models, atlas registration, level-sets, graph-cuts and rule-based systems. All results were compared to reference segmentations five error measures that highlight different aspects of segmentation accuracy. All measures were combined according to a specific scoring system relating the obtained values to human expert variability. In general, interactive methods reached higher average scores than automatic approaches and featured a better consistency of segmentation quality. However, the best automatic methods (mainly based on statistical shape models with some additional free deformation) could compete well on the majority of test images. The study provides an insight in performance of different segmentation approaches under real-world conditions and highlights achievements and limitations of current image analysis techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19211338     DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2009.2013851

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging        ISSN: 0278-0062            Impact factor:   10.048


  166 in total

1.  Liver segmentation in contrast enhanced CT data using graph cuts and interactive 3D segmentation refinement methods.

Authors:  Reinhard Beichel; Alexander Bornik; Christian Bauer; Erich Sorantin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Extreme leg motion analysis of professional ballet dancers via MRI segmentation of multiple leg postures.

Authors:  Jérôme Schmid; Jinman Kim; Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Freehand liver volumetry by using an electromagnetic pen tablet: accuracy, precision, and rapidity.

Authors:  Simone Perandini; Niccolò Faccioli; Marco Inama; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Liver segmentation for contrast-enhanced MR images using partitioned probabilistic model.

Authors:  László Ruskó; György Bekes
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  Automatic multi-parametric quantification of the proximal femur with quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Julio Carballido-Gamio; Serena Bonaretti; Isra Saeed; Roy Harnish; Robert Recker; Andrew J Burghardt; Joyce H Keyak; Tamara Harris; Sundeep Khosla; Thomas F Lang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-08

6.  Implementation and use of 3D pairwise geodesic distance fields for seeding abdominal aortic vessels.

Authors:  M Alper Selver; A Emre Kavur
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Shape-intensity prior level set combining probabilistic atlas and probability map constrains for automatic liver segmentation from abdominal CT images.

Authors:  Jinke Wang; Yuanzhi Cheng; Changyong Guo; Yadong Wang; Shinichi Tamura
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 8.  Principles and methods for automatic and semi-automatic tissue segmentation in MRI data.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Teodora Chitiboi; Hans Meine; Matthias Günther; Horst K Hahn
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Automatic liver segmentation based on appearance and context information.

Authors:  Yongchang Zheng; Danni Ai; Jinrong Mu; Weijian Cong; Xuan Wang; Haitao Zhao; Jian Yang
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2017-01-14       Impact factor: 2.819

10.  Adaptive prior probability and spatial temporal intensity change estimation for segmentation of the one-year-old human brain.

Authors:  Sun Hyung Kim; Vladimir S Fonov; Cheryl Dietrich; Clement Vachet; Heather C Hazlett; Rachel G Smith; Michael M Graves; Joseph Piven; John H Gilmore; Stephen R Dager; Robert C McKinstry; Sarah Paterson; Alan C Evans; D Louis Collins; Guido Gerig; Martin Andreas Styner
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2012-09-29       Impact factor: 2.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.