Literature DB >> 23011805

Automatic intra-subject registration-based segmentation of abdominal fat from water-fat MRI.

Anand A Joshi1, Houchun H Hu, Richard M Leahy, Michael I Goran, Krishna S Nayak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop an automatic registration-based segmentation algorithm for measuring abdominal adipose tissue depot volumes and organ fat fraction content from three-dimensional (3D) water-fat MRI data, and to evaluate its performance against manual segmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from 11 subjects at two time points with intermediate repositioning, and from four subjects before and after a meal with repositioning. Imaging was performed on a 3 Tesla MRI, using the IDEAL chemical-shift water-fat pulse sequence. Adipose tissue (subcutaneous--SAT, visceral--VAT) and organs (liver, pancreas) were manually segmented twice for each scan by a single trained observer. Automated segmentations of each subject's second scan were generated using a nonrigid volume registration algorithm for water-fat MRI images that used a b-spline basis for deformation and minimized image dissimilarity after the deformation. Manual and automated segmentations were compared using Dice coefficients and linear regression of SAT and VAT volumes, organ volumes, and hepatic and pancreatic fat fractions (HFF, PFF).
RESULTS: Manual segmentations from the 11 repositioned subjects exhibited strong repeatability and set performance benchmarks. The average Dice coefficients were 0.9747 (SAT), 0.9424 (VAT), 0.9404 (liver), and 0.8205 (pancreas); the linear correlation coefficients were 0.9994 (SAT volume), 0.9974 (VAT volume), 0.9885 (liver volume), 0.9782 (pancreas volume), 0.9996 (HFF), and 0.9660 (PFF). When comparing manual and automated segmentations, the average Dice coefficients were 0.9043 (SAT volume), 0.8235 (VAT), 0.8942 (liver), and 0.7168 (pancreas); the linear correlation coefficients were 0.9493 (SAT volume), 0.9982 (VAT volume), 0.9326 (liver volume), 0.8876 (pancreas volume), 0.9972 (HFF), and 0.8617 (PFF). In the four pre- and post-prandial subjects, the Dice coefficients were 0.9024 (SAT), 0.7781 (VAT), 0.8799 (liver), and 0.5179 (pancreas); the linear correlation coefficients were 0.9889, 0.9902 (SAT, and VAT volume), 0.9523 (liver volume), 0.8760 (pancreas volume), 0.9991 (HFF), and 0.6338 (PFF).
CONCLUSION: Automated intra-subject registration-based segmentation is potentially suitable for the quantification of abdominal and organ fat and achieves comparable quantitative endpoints with respect to manual segmentation.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23011805      PMCID: PMC3531568          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23813

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  36 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance imaging in human body composition research. From quantitative to qualitative tissue measurement.

Authors:  R Ross; B Goodpaster; D Kelley; F Boada
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.691

2.  SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI.

Authors:  K P Pruessmann; M Weiger; M B Scheidegger; P Boesiger
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Fast adipose tissue (FAT) assessment by MRI.

Authors:  S A Gronemeyer; R G Steen; W M Kauffman; W E Reddick; J O Glass
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.546

4.  Construction of an abdominal probabilistic atlas and its application in segmentation.

Authors:  Hyunjin Park; Peyton H Bland; Charles R Meyer
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  An accurate and robust method for unsupervised assessment of abdominal fat by MRI.

Authors:  Vincenzo Positano; Amalia Gastaldelli; Anna Maria Sironi; Maria Filomena Santarelli; Massimo Lombardi; Luigi Landini
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Novel segmentation method for abdominal fat quantification by MRI.

Authors:  Anqi Zhou; Horacio Murillo; Qi Peng
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Accurate three-dimensional registration of CT, PET, and/or MR images of the brain.

Authors:  C A Pelizzari; G T Chen; D R Spelbring; R R Weichselbaum; C T Chen
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Measurement of fat distribution by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M A Staten; W G Totty; W M Kohrt
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Automatic abdominal fat assessment in obese mice using a segmental shape model.

Authors:  Yang Tang; Priyank Sharma; Marvin D Nelson; Richard Simerly; Rex A Moats
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  MRI of muscular fat.

Authors:  Fritz Schick; Jürgen Machann; Klaus Brechtel; Andrea Strempfer; Bernhard Klumpp; Daniel T Stein; Stephan Jacob
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  15 in total

1.  Hepatic fat quantification using the proton density fat fraction (PDFF): utility of free-drawn-PDFF with a large coverage area.

Authors:  Kun Young Kim; Ji Soo Song; Stephan Kannengiesser; Young Min Han
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Vegetable consumption is linked to decreased visceral and liver fat and improved insulin resistance in overweight Latino youth.

Authors:  Lauren T Cook; Gillian A O'Reilly; Michael I Goran; Marc J Weigensberg; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Jaimie N Davis
Journal:  J Acad Nutr Diet       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 4.910

Review 3.  Quantitative proton MR techniques for measuring fat.

Authors:  H H Hu; H E Kan
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.044

Review 4.  MRI adipose tissue and muscle composition analysis-a review of automation techniques.

Authors:  Magnus Borga
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Feasibility of automated pancreas segmentation based on dynamic MRI.

Authors:  S Gou; J Wu; F Liu; P Lee; S Rapacchi; P Hu; K Sheng
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Optimization of abdominal fat quantification on CT imaging through use of standardized anatomic space: a novel approach.

Authors:  Yubing Tong; Jayaram K Udupa; Drew A Torigian
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Automated assessment of thigh composition using machine learning for Dixon magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Yu Xin Yang; Mei Sian Chong; Laura Tay; Suzanne Yew; Audrey Yeo; Cher Heng Tan
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 2.310

8.  Comparison of T1-weighted 2D TSE, 3D SPGR, and two-point 3D Dixon MRI for automated segmentation of visceral adipose tissue at 3 Tesla.

Authors:  Faezeh Fallah; Jürgen Machann; Petros Martirosian; Fabian Bamberg; Fritz Schick; Bin Yang
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Canine body composition quantification using 3 tesla fat-water MRI.

Authors:  Aliya Gifford; Joel Kullberg; Johan Berglund; Filip Malmberg; Katie C Coate; Phillip E Williams; Alan D Cherrington; Malcolm J Avison; E Brian Welch
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 10.  Segmentation and quantification of adipose tissue by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Houchun Harry Hu; Jun Chen; Wei Shen
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.310

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.