June-Goo Lee1, Serter Gumus1, Chan Hong Moon1, C Kent Kwoh2, Kyongtae Ty Bae1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213. 2. Division of Rheumatology, University of Arizona Arthritis Center, Tucson, Arizona 85716.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a fully automated method to segment cartilage from the magnetic resonance (MR) images of knee and to evaluate the performance of the method on a public, open dataset. METHODS: The segmentation scheme consisted of three procedures: multiple-atlas building, applying a locally weighted vote (LWV), and region adjustment. In the atlas building procedure, all training cases were registered to a target image by a nonrigid registration scheme and the best matched atlases selected. A LWV algorithm was applied to merge the information from these atlases and generate the initial segmentation result. Subsequently, for the region adjustment procedure, the statistical information of bone, cartilage, and surrounding regions was computed from the initial segmentation result. The statistical information directed the automated determination of the seed points inside and outside bone regions for the graph-cut based method. Finally, the region adjustment was conducted by the revision of outliers and the inclusion of abnormal bone regions. RESULTS: A total of 150 knee MR images from a public, open dataset (available atwww.ski10.org) were used for the development and evaluation of this approach. The 150 cases were divided into the training set (100 cases) and the test set (50 cases). The cartilages were segmented successfully in all test cases in an average of 40 min computation time. The average dice similarity coefficient was 71.7%±8.0% for femoral and 72.4%±6.9% for tibial cartilage. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed a fully automated segmentation program for knee cartilage from MR images. The performance of the program based on 50 test cases was highly promising.
PURPOSE: To develop a fully automated method to segment cartilage from the magnetic resonance (MR) images of knee and to evaluate the performance of the method on a public, open dataset. METHODS: The segmentation scheme consisted of three procedures: multiple-atlas building, applying a locally weighted vote (LWV), and region adjustment. In the atlas building procedure, all training cases were registered to a target image by a nonrigid registration scheme and the best matched atlases selected. A LWV algorithm was applied to merge the information from these atlases and generate the initial segmentation result. Subsequently, for the region adjustment procedure, the statistical information of bone, cartilage, and surrounding regions was computed from the initial segmentation result. The statistical information directed the automated determination of the seed points inside and outside bone regions for the graph-cut based method. Finally, the region adjustment was conducted by the revision of outliers and the inclusion of abnormal bone regions. RESULTS: A total of 150 knee MR images from a public, open dataset (available atwww.ski10.org) were used for the development and evaluation of this approach. The 150 cases were divided into the training set (100 cases) and the test set (50 cases). The cartilages were segmented successfully in all test cases in an average of 40 min computation time. The average dice similarity coefficient was 71.7%±8.0% for femoral and 72.4%±6.9% for tibial cartilage. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed a fully automated segmentation program for knee cartilage from MR images. The performance of the program based on 50 test cases was highly promising.
Authors: Yin Yin; Xiangmin Zhang; Rachel Williams; Xiaodong Wu; Donald D Anderson; Milan Sonka Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Xabier Artaechevarria; Arrate Munoz-Barrutia; Carlos Ortiz-de-Solorzano Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Stefan Klein; Uulke A van der Heide; Irene M Lips; Marco van Vulpen; Marius Staring; Josien P W Pluim Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stefan Klein; Marius Staring; Keelin Murphy; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Eva M van Rikxoort; Ivana Isgum; Yulia Arzhaeva; Marius Staring; Stefan Klein; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim; Bram van Ginneken Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Tomos G Williams; Andrew P Holmes; John C Waterton; Rose A Maciewicz; Charles E Hutchinson; Robert J Moots; Anthony F P Nash; Chris J Taylor Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Mert R Sabuncu; B T Thomas Yeo; Koen Van Leemput; Bruce Fischl; Polina Golland Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ruida Cheng; Natalia A Alexandridi; Richard M Smith; Aricia Shen; William Gandler; Evan McCreedy; Matthew J McAuliffe; Frances T Sheehan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: F W Roemer; J Collins; C K Kwoh; M J Hannon; T Neogi; D T Felson; D J Hunter; J A Lynch; A Guermazi Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Ekaterina Brui; Aleksandr Y Efimtcev; Vladimir A Fokin; Remi Fernandez; Anatoliy G Levchuk; Augustin C Ogier; Alexey A Samsonov; Jean P Mattei; Irina V Melchakova; David Bendahan; Anna Andreychenko Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Tatiane Cantarelli Rodrigues; Cem M Deniz; Erin F Alaia; Natalia Gorelik; James S Babb; Jared Dublin; Soterios Gyftopoulos Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-09-09