UNLABELLED: Precision and accuracy are sometimes sacrificed to ensure that medical image processing is rapid. To address this, our lab had developed a novel level set segmentation algorithm that is 16× faster and >96% accurate on realistic brain phantoms. METHODS: This study reports speed, precision and estimated accuracy of our algorithm when measuring MRIs of meningioma brain tumors and compares it to manual tracing and modified MacDonald (MM) ellipsoid criteria. A repeated-measures study allowed us to determine measurement precisions (MPs) - clinically relevant thresholds for statistically significant change. RESULTS: Speed: the level set, MM, and trace methods required 1:20, 1:35, and 9:35 (mm:ss) respectively on average to complete a volume measurement (p<0.05). Accuracy: the level set was not statistically different to the estimated true lesion volumes (p>0.05). Precision: the MM's within-operator and between-operator MPs were significantly higher (worse) than the other methods (p<0.05). The observed difference in MP between the level set and trace methods did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our level set is faster on average than MM, yet has accuracy and precision comparable to manual tracing.
UNLABELLED: Precision and accuracy are sometimes sacrificed to ensure that medical image processing is rapid. To address this, our lab had developed a novel level set segmentation algorithm that is 16× faster and >96% accurate on realistic brain phantoms. METHODS: This study reports speed, precision and estimated accuracy of our algorithm when measuring MRIs of meningioma brain tumors and compares it to manual tracing and modified MacDonald (MM) ellipsoid criteria. A repeated-measures study allowed us to determine measurement precisions (MPs) - clinically relevant thresholds for statistically significant change. RESULTS: Speed: the level set, MM, and trace methods required 1:20, 1:35, and 9:35 (mm:ss) respectively on average to complete a volume measurement (p<0.05). Accuracy: the level set was not statistically different to the estimated true lesion volumes (p>0.05). Precision: the MM's within-operator and between-operator MPs were significantly higher (worse) than the other methods (p<0.05). The observed difference in MP between the level set and trace methods did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our level set is faster on average than MM, yet has accuracy and precision comparable to manual tracing.
Authors: Maryam Aghighi; Justin Boe; Jarrett Rosenberg; Rie Von Eyben; Rakhee S Gawande; Philippe Petit; Tarsheen K Sethi; Jeremy Sharib; Neyssa M Marina; Steven G DuBois; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Konrad Stawiski; Joanna Trelińska; Dobromiła Baranska; Iwona Dachowska; Katarzyna Kotulska; Sergiusz Jóźwiak; Wojciech Fendler; Wojciech Młynarski Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Joseph Ross Mitchell; Konstantinos Kamnitsas; Kyle W Singleton; Scott A Whitmire; Kamala R Clark-Swanson; Sara Ranjbar; Cassandra R Rickertsen; Sandra K Johnston; Kathleen M Egan; Dana E Rollison; John Arrington; Karl N Krecke; Theodore J Passe; Jared T Verdoorn; Alex A Nagelschneider; Carrie M Carr; John D Port; Alice Patton; Norbert G Campeau; Greta B Liebo; Laurence J Eckel; Christopher P Wood; Christopher H Hunt; Prasanna Vibhute; Kent D Nelson; Joseph M Hoxworth; Ameet C Patel; Brian W Chong; Jeffrey S Ross; Jerrold L Boxerman; Michael A Vogelbaum; Leland S Hu; Ben Glocker; Kristin R Swanson Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-10-16