PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of manual and automatic blood vessel diameter measurements, a quantitative comparison was conducted, using both phantom and clinical 3D magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) data. Since diameters are often manually measured, which likely is influenced by operator dependency, automatic lumen delineation, based on the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), could improve these measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manual and automatic diameter assessments were compared, using MRA data from a vascular phantom (geometry obtained with μCT) and clinical MRA data. The diameters were manually assessed by 15 MRA experts, using both caliper and contour tools. To translate the experimental results to clinical practice, the precision obtained using phantom data was compared to the precision obtained with clinical data. RESULTS: A diameter error <10% was obtained with resolutions above 2, 3, and 5 pixels/diameter for the automatic FWHM, contour, and caliper methods, respectively. Using phantom data, precision of the manual methods was low (error >20%), even at high resolutions, while precision for the automatic method was high (error <3%) when using more than 2 pixels/diameter. A similar trend was found with clinical data. CONCLUSION: The results obtained clearly demonstrate improvement in the accuracy and precision of vessel diameter measurements with use of the automatic FWHM-based method.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of manual and automatic blood vessel diameter measurements, a quantitative comparison was conducted, using both phantom and clinical 3D magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) data. Since diameters are often manually measured, which likely is influenced by operator dependency, automatic lumen delineation, based on the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), could improve these measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manual and automatic diameter assessments were compared, using MRA data from a vascular phantom (geometry obtained with μCT) and clinical MRA data. The diameters were manually assessed by 15 MRA experts, using both caliper and contour tools. To translate the experimental results to clinical practice, the precision obtained using phantom data was compared to the precision obtained with clinical data. RESULTS: A diameter error <10% was obtained with resolutions above 2, 3, and 5 pixels/diameter for the automatic FWHM, contour, and caliper methods, respectively. Using phantom data, precision of the manual methods was low (error >20%), even at high resolutions, while precision for the automatic method was high (error <3%) when using more than 2 pixels/diameter. A similar trend was found with clinical data. CONCLUSION: The results obtained clearly demonstrate improvement in the accuracy and precision of vessel diameter measurements with use of the automatic FWHM-based method.
Authors: M A G Merkx; A S Bode; W Huberts; J Oliván Bescós; J H M Tordoir; M Breeuwer; F N van de Vosse; E M H Bosboom Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2013-03-23 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Jing Jiang; Paul Kokeny; Wang Ying; Chris Magnano; Robert Zivadinov; E Mark Haacke Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Sheldon M Singh; Laura Jimenez-Juan; Asaf Danon; Gorka Bastarrika; Andriy V Shmatukha; Graham A Wright; Eugene Crystal Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2014-09-23
Authors: Maarten A G Merkx; Wouter Huberts; E Mariëlle H Bosboom; Aron S Bode; Javier Oliván Bescós; Jan H M Tordoir; Marcel Breeuwer; Frans N van de Vosse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ioannis Koktzoglou; Matthew T Walker; Joel R Meyer; Ian G Murphy; Robert R Edelman Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Karl Jakob Weiss; Holger Eggers; Christian Stehning; Marc Kouwenhoven; Mithal Nassar; Burkert Pieske; Philipp Stawowy; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Sebastian Kelle Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2020-10-30