Literature DB >> 20135093

Detection of vertebral fractures in DXA VFA images using statistical models of appearance and a semi-automatic segmentation.

M G Roberts1, E M B Pacheco, R Mohankumar, T F Cootes, J E Adams.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: Morphometric methods of vertebral fracture diagnosis lack specificity. We used detailed shape and image texture model parameters to improve the specificity of quantitative fracture identification. Two radiologists visually classified all vertebrae for system training and evaluation. The vertebral endplates were located by a semi-automatic segmentation method to obtain classifier inputs.
INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fractures are common osteoporotic fractures, but current quantitative detection methods (morphometry) lack specificity. We used detailed shape and texture information to develop more specific quantitative classifiers of vertebral fracture to improve the objectivity of vertebral fracture diagnosis. These classifiers require a detailed segmentation of the vertebral endplate, and so we investigated the use of semi-automated segmentation methods as part of the diagnosis.
METHODS: The vertebrae in a training set of 360 dual energy X-ray absorptiometry images were manually segmented. The shape and image texture of vertebrae were statistically modelled using Appearance Models. The vertebrae were given a gold standard classification by two radiologists. Linear discriminant classifiers to detect fractures were trained on the vertebral appearance model parameters. Classifier performance was evaluated by cross-validation for manual and semi-automatic segmentations, the latter derived using Active Appearance Models (AAM). Results were compared with a morphometric algorithm using the signs test.
RESULTS: With manual segmentation, the false positive rates (FPR) at 95% sensitivity were: 5% (appearance) and 18% (morphometry). With semi-automatic segmentations the sensitivities at 5% FPR were: 88% (appearance) and 79% (morphometry).
CONCLUSION: Specificity and sensitivity are improved by using an appearance-based classifier compared to standard height ratio morphometry. An overall sensitivity loss of 7% occurs (at 95% specificity) when using a semi-automatic (AAM) segmentation compared to expert annotation, due to segmentation error. However, the classifier sensitivity is still adequate for a computer-assisted diagnosis system for vertebral fracture, especially if used in a triage approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20135093     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-1169-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  30 in total

1.  Visual assessment of vertebral deformity by X-ray absorptiometry: a highly predictive method to exclude vertebral deformity.

Authors:  J A Rea; J Li; G M Blake; P Steiger; H K Genant; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Improving appearance model matching using local image structure.

Authors:  I M Scott; T F Cootes; C J Taylor
Journal:  Inf Process Med Imaging       Date:  2003-07

3.  Vertebral morphometry: semiautomatic determination of detailed shape from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry images using active appearance models.

Authors:  Martin Roberts; Timothy F Cootes; Judith E Adams
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Effects of clodronate on vertebral fracture risk in osteoporosis: a 1-year interim analysis.

Authors:  E McCloskey; P Selby; D de Takats; J Bernard; M Davies; J Robinson; R Francis; J Adams; K Pande; M Beneton; T Jalava; E Löyttyniemi; J A Kanis
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Lateral vertebral assessment: a valuable technique to detect clinically significant vertebral fractures.

Authors:  Neil Binkley; D Krueger; R Gangnon; H K Genant; M K Drezner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study.

Authors:  Pierre D Delmas; Lex van de Langerijt; Nelson B Watts; Richard Eastell; Harry Genant; Andreas Grauer; David L Cahall
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2004-12-06       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 7.  Identification of vertebral fractures: an update.

Authors:  L Ferrar; G Jiang; J Adams; R Eastell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-03       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting.

Authors:  S H Gehlbach; C Bigelow; M Heimisdottir; S May; M Walker; J R Kirkwood
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Visual identification of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis using morphometric X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  L Ferrar; G Jiang; R Eastell; N F A Peel
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Optimizing data acquisition and analysis of morphometric X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  J A Rea; P Steiger; G M Blake; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 5.071

View more
  9 in total

1.  Intra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative morphometry measurements and vertebral fracture assessment using lateral scout views from computed tomography.

Authors:  Y M Kim; S Demissie; R Eisenberg; E J Samelson; D P Kiel; M L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  High precision semiautomated computed tomography measurement of lumbar disk and vertebral heights.

Authors:  Sovira Tan; Jianhua Yao; Lawrence Yao; Michael M Ward
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures using CT lateral scout views: a comparison of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry and radiologist semi-quantitative grading.

Authors:  Y M Kim; S Demissie; H K Genant; X Cheng; W Yu; E J Samelson; D P Kiel; M L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-09-17       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Quantitative vertebral morphometry based on parametric modeling of vertebral bodies in 3D.

Authors:  D Stern; V Njagulj; B Likar; F Pernuš; T Vrtovec
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Semi-automatic determination of detailed vertebral shape from lumbar radiographs using active appearance models.

Authors:  M G Roberts; T Oh; E M B Pacheco; R Mohankumar; T F Cootes; J E Adams
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Automatic detection of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine thoracic and abdominal MDCT.

Authors:  Thomas Baum; Jan S Bauer; Tobias Klinder; Martin Dobritz; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël; Cristian Lorenz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Statistical shape and appearance models in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Isaac Castro-Mateos; Jose M Pozo; Timothy F Cootes; J Mark Wilkinson; Richard Eastell; Alejandro F Frangi
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.096

8.  DMCNN: A Deep Multiscale Convolutional Neural Network Model for Medical Image Segmentation.

Authors:  Lin Teng; Hang Li; Shahid Karim
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 2.682

Review 9.  Opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis, fragile bone strength and vertebral fractures from routine CT scans; a review of approved technology systems and pathways to implementation.

Authors:  Veena Aggarwal; Christina Maslen; Richard L Abel; Pinaki Bhattacharya; Paul A Bromiley; Emma M Clark; Juliet E Compston; Nicola Crabtree; Jennifer S Gregory; Eleni P Kariki; Nicholas C Harvey; Kate A Ward; Kenneth E S Poole
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 5.346

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.