| Literature DB >> 19721830 |
Sang Ok Park1, Joon Beom Seo, Namkug Kim, Seong Hoon Park, Young Kyung Lee, Bum-Woo Park, Yu Sub Sung, Youngjoo Lee, Jeongjin Lee, Suk-Ho Kang.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to develop an automated system for quantification of various regional disease patterns of diffuse lung diseases as depicted on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and to compare the performance of the automated system with human readers.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography (CT), high resolution; Computed tomography (CT), image processing; Computed tomography (CT), quantitative; Diffuse interstitial lung disease
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19721830 PMCID: PMC2731863 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2009.10.5.455
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Radiol ISSN: 1229-6929 Impact factor: 3.500
Summary of 13 Texture Features and 24 Shape Features That Represent Each Region of Interest
Note.-GLCM = grey level co-occurrence matrix, ITK = Insight ToolKit, IDM = inverse difference moment, SD = standard deviation
Fig. 1High-resolution CT scans of chest (window level, -850 HU; width, 400 HU) are shown. On each image, three different sizes of circular (16, 32 and 64 pixel diameters) region of interest highlight features that are typical of particular condition.
Normal lung parenchyma (A), ground-glass opacity (B), reticular opacity (C), honeycombing (D), emphysema (E) and consolidation (F) are shown.
Classification Performance of System Using Typical ROIs
Note.-ROI = region of interest, NL = normal, GGO = ground-glass opacity, RO = reticular opacity, HC = honeycombing, EMPH = emphysema, CONS = consolidation
Fig. 2Quantification results are shown for use of automated system and by two readers depicted by color-coded overlay in several cases (normal, green; ground-glass opacity, yellow; reticular opacity, cyan; honeycombing, blue; emphysema, red; consolidation, pink). For cases 1 and 2, color-coded quantification results were well correlated with findings of readers except that some portions of normal vessels were considered to show reticular opacity by use of automated system. Case 3 shows discrepancy between system and readers for classification of normal, ground-glass opacity and reticular opacity. Large area classified as normal by reader 2 was considered as ground-glass opacity by reader 1 and as mixed reticular opacity and ground-glass opacity by system. Cases 4, 5 and 6 show very good agreement between use of system and readers for quantification of honeycombing, emphysema and consolidation.
Quantification Agreement between Automated System and Two Readers
Note.-NL = normal, GGO = ground-glass opacity, RO = reticular opacity, HC = honeycombing, EMPH = emphysema, CONS = consolidation
Quantification Agreement between Automated System and Readers Based on Fractional Area
Note.-SVM = Support Vector Machine, NL = normal, HC = honeycombing, GGO = ground-glass opacity, CONS = consolidation, EMPH = emphysema, RO = reticular opacity