| Literature DB >> 25595523 |
Omar S Al-Kadi1, Daniel Y F Chung2, Robert C Carlisle2, Constantin C Coussios2, J Alison Noble2.
Abstract
Intensity variations in image texture can provide powerful quantitative information about physical properties of biological tissue. However, tissue patterns can vary according to the utilized imaging system and are intrinsically correlated to the scale of analysis. In the case of ultrasound, the Nakagami distribution is a general model of the ultrasonic backscattering envelope under various scattering conditions and densities where it can be employed for characterizing image texture, but the subtle intra-heterogeneities within a given mass are difficult to capture via this model as it works at a single spatial scale. This paper proposes a locally adaptive 3D multi-resolution Nakagami-based fractal feature descriptor that extends Nakagami-based texture analysis to accommodate subtle speckle spatial frequency tissue intensity variability in volumetric scans. Local textural fractal descriptors - which are invariant to affine intensity changes - are extracted from volumetric patches at different spatial resolutions from voxel lattice-based generated shape and scale Nakagami parameters. Using ultrasound radio-frequency datasets we found that after applying an adaptive fractal decomposition label transfer approach on top of the generated Nakagami voxels, tissue characterization results were superior to the state of art. Experimental results on real 3D ultrasonic pre-clinical and clinical datasets suggest that describing tumor intra-heterogeneity via this descriptor may facilitate improved prediction of therapy response and disease characterization.Entities:
Keywords: Fractal dimension; Nakagami modeling; Texture analysis; Tumor characterization; Ultrasound imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25595523 PMCID: PMC4339203 DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2014.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Image Anal ISSN: 1361-8415 Impact factor: 8.545
Fig. 13D multifractal Nakagami feature descriptor algorithm design for ultrasonic tissue characterization introduced in this paper.
Fig. 2Six ultrasound hypoechoic to hyperechoic gray scale target phantoms having 8 mm diameter and 4 cm depth and corresponding simulated B-mode image representing a varying intensity from hypoechoic, −6, −3, +3, +6 dB, and hyperechoic, respectively.
Fig. 3(a) Simulated ultrasound B-mode image following the method in Bamber and Dickinson (1980) showing different 4 cm depth of 4, 6 and 8 mm diameter gray scale target phantoms ranging from −6, −3, +3 and +6 dB varying intensity, (b) a real ultrasound B-mode volume of interest of a liver tumor with corresponding fractal slice map in (c) – estimated from the RF envelope of the ultrasound backscattered signal – indicating the subtle low-activity regions.
Fig. 4Multiresolution volumetric modeling showing the decomposition up to 3 hierarchical levels by recursive subdivision of volume into octants voxels (left) and corresponding decomposition tree (middle).
Fig. 5Normalized Daubechies’ orthogonal wavelet showing scaling (father) and wavelet (mother) functions with 4 vanishing moments, and corresponding first level Daubechies wavelet decomposition for a liver tumor volume of interest showing from left to right the approximation, horizontal, vertical, and diagonal coefficients, respectively.
Fig. 6Overcomplete multi-scale volumetric Nakagami tumor regions; the small voxel lattice centered on the localized voxel , where , and r are the voxel position on the lattice for scale r, is convolved with larger voxels up to j resolution levels for estimation of the mean absolute difference of voxel pairs matrix.
Fig. 7Segmented liver tumor volume of interest; and the annotation squares in the enlarged image show the variation of voxel lattice size used in the experiments.
Fig. 8Goodness of fit for optimizing the voxel lattice size utilized in the Nakagami distribution fitting.
Fig. 9Example of a voxel-based tissue characterization for a non-progressive liver tumor case. The tumor 3D volume is reconstructed in (a), and the B-mode middle slice (b) after transforming using the MNF algorithm is shown in (c–f). The Nakagami shape and scale parametric voxels (c) and (d) and the corresponding multi-resolution fractal slice maps (e) and (f) illustrates how the case responds to chemotherapy treatment – the blue color regions in (e) and (f) which correspond with the RECIST criteria. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 10Fractal volume maps: Volumetric rendering of Nakagami parametric scale (first row) and shape (second row) for a progressive and non-progressive liver tumor volume, respectively.
Fig. 11Pairwise horizontal comparison of texture-based volume rendering of Nakagami scale (a–d) and shape (e–h) multi-fractal volume maps. (a) and (b) Are an example of a non-progressive case in pre and post-chemotherapy treatment, and the (c) and (d) are for a progressive case in pre and post-chemotherapy treatment, respectively; (e) and (f), and (g) and (h) are the corresponding volumetric Nakagami shape cases. Red color labels indicate low local fractal dimension or low-activity regions which correspond to necrotic regions according to RECIST criteria. In first row, it is noticed that the spread of the red voxels has increased in post-treatment as compared to pre-treatment, and vice versa in the second row. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 12Performance comparison for the MNF method against the filter-based Gabor filter (GF), model-based fractional Brownian motion (fBm) and Gaussian Markov random field (GMRF), and statistical-based gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), run-length matrix (RLM), and autocovariance function (ACF) texture analysis methods. The blue columns represent the operation of the texture descriptors on volumetric Nakagami parametric volume of interests, while the red columns are results from conventional ultrasonic intensity B-mode volume of interests. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Features extracted from the comparative texture analysis methods in Fig. 12.
| Method | Texture features |
|---|---|
| GF | Energy of each magnitude response for five radial frequencies |
| GMRF | Seven features estimated from a third order Markov neighborhood model |
| fBm | Mean, variance, lacunarity, skewness and kurtosis derived from the generated FD image |
| GLCM | Contrast, correlation, energy, entropy, homogeneity, dissimilarity, inverse difference momentum, maximum probability statistical features derived in the 0°, 45°, 90° and 135° directions |
| RLM | Short run emphasis, long run emphasis, gray level non-uniformity, run length non-uniformity and run percentage statistical features derived in the 0°, 45°, 90° and 135° directions |
| ACF | Peaks of the horizontal and vertical margins values and associated exponential fittings of the ACF |
Detailed classification performance for the 3D clinical RF ultrasound liver tumor test set using the MNF algorithm.
| Classification performance | Cross-validation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Loo | 5-fold | 10-fold | |
| Recall | 0.935 | ||
| FP rate | 0.065 | ||
| Accuracy | 0.929 | ||
| Precision | 0.941 | ||
| 0.928 | |||
| 0.929 | |||
| Dice SC | 0.963 | ||
| ROC Area | 0.929 | ||
Detailed classification performance for the 3D clinical RF ultrasound liver tumor test set using only the Nakagami parameters.
| Classification performance | Cross-validation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Loo | 5-fold | 10-fold | |
| Recall | 0.715 | ||
| FP rate | 0.514 | ||
| Accuracy | 0.594 | ||
| Precision | 0.656 | ||
| 0.595 | |||
| 0.594 | |||
| Dice SC | 0.745 | ||
| ROC Area | 0.600 | ||
Detailed classification performance using B-mode images of the 3D clinical ultrasound liver tumor test set.
| Classification performance | Cross-validation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Loo | 5-fold | 10-fold | |
| Recall | 0.823 | ||
| FP rate | 0.135 | ||
| Accuracy | 0.845 | ||
| Precision | 0.845 | ||
| 0.845 | |||
| 0.845 | |||
| Dice SC | 0.916 | ||
| ROC Area | 0.844 | ||
| 1: |
| 2: { |
| 3: |
| 4: Fit with a Nakagami distribution |
| 5: { |
| |
| where |
| 6: { |
| 7: |
| 8: |
| 9: |
| 10: { |
| |
| |
| 11: { |
| 12: |
| 13: |
| 14: |
| 15: compute mean absolute difference |
| 16: { |
| 17: normalize and take the logarithm |
| where |
| 18: normalize voxel pairs distances |
| 19: perform least square linear regression as |
| |
| |
| 20: estimate the Hurst coefficient |
| 21: estimate the fractal map |
| 22: |
| 23: |
| 24: extract mean fractal dimension |
| where |
| 25: construct feature descriptor from all wavelet sub-bands |
| 26: |
| 27: |
| 28: { |
| |
| |
| 29: |
| 30: |
| 31: |
| 32: |