PURPOSE: To compare the precision of four methods to estimate the volume of quadriceps muscles using axial MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Entire legs of 10 healthy young subjects were scanned using a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner and 4-mm-thick sections without any gaps. Quadriceps muscles were outlined on all of the slices to obtain the MRI reference standard measure of quadriceps muscle volume. This MRI reference standard was compared with the volume estimated using (i) the truncated cone formula, (ii) the Cavalieri method, (iii) a cubic spline interpolation of missing cross sectional areas, and, (iv) the deformation of a parametric specific object. For each method, 3 to 21 slices were used. RESULTS: The average volume error was significantly (P < 0.001) different in comparing the four methods (4.4%, 2.3%, 1.1%, and 1.2%, respectively). In addition, the number of slices required to reach a given volume error was significantly (P < 0.001) different across all methods (respectively, 12, 9, 5, and 7 slices required to reach a volume error of 1.1%). CONCLUSION: While methods based on interpolation and deformation of a parametric specific object have not been used in literature, these two methods are the most precise approaches to reach a given level of precision.
PURPOSE: To compare the precision of four methods to estimate the volume of quadriceps muscles using axial MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Entire legs of 10 healthy young subjects were scanned using a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner and 4-mm-thick sections without any gaps. Quadriceps muscles were outlined on all of the slices to obtain the MRI reference standard measure of quadriceps muscle volume. This MRI reference standard was compared with the volume estimated using (i) the truncated cone formula, (ii) the Cavalieri method, (iii) a cubic spline interpolation of missing cross sectional areas, and, (iv) the deformation of a parametric specific object. For each method, 3 to 21 slices were used. RESULTS: The average volume error was significantly (P < 0.001) different in comparing the four methods (4.4%, 2.3%, 1.1%, and 1.2%, respectively). In addition, the number of slices required to reach a given volume error was significantly (P < 0.001) different across all methods (respectively, 12, 9, 5, and 7 slices required to reach a volume error of 1.1%). CONCLUSION: While methods based on interpolation and deformation of a parametric specific object have not been used in literature, these two methods are the most precise approaches to reach a given level of precision.
Authors: Magda Marcon; Bernhard Ciritsis; Christoph Laux; Daniel Nanz; Thi Dan Linh Nguyen-Kim; Michael A Fischer; Gustav Andreisek; Erika J Ulbrich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Elizabeth A Bye; Lisa A Harvey; Joanne V Glinsky; Bart Bolsterlee; Robert D Herbert Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Emil Rydell Högelin; Kajsa Thulin; Ferdinand von Walden; Lotta Fornander; Piotr Michno; Björn Alkner Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Fabio Sarto; Jörg Spörri; Daniel P Fitze; Jonathan I Quinlan; Marco V Narici; Martino V Franchi Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Cecilia Dorado; Ana López-Gordillo; José A Serrano-Sánchez; José A L Calbet; Joaquín Sanchis-Moysi Journal: Sports Health Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.843