Youngwoo Kim1, Yinghui Ge1, Cheng Tao1, Jianbing Zhu1, Arlene B Chapman2, Vicente E Torres3, Alan S L Yu4, Michal Mrug5, William M Bennett6, Michael F Flessner7, Doug P Landsittel8, Kyongtae T Bae9. 1. Departments of Radiology and. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas; 5. Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama; 6. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, Portland, Oregon; and. 7. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 9. Departments of Radiology and baek@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our study developed a fully automated method for segmentation and volumetric measurements of kidneys from magnetic resonance images in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and assessed the performance of the automated method with the reference manual segmentation method. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Study patients were selected from the Consortium for Radiologic Imaging Studies of Polycystic Kidney Disease. At the enrollment of the Consortium for Radiologic Imaging Studies of Polycystic Kidney Disease Study in 2000, patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease were between 15 and 46 years of age with relatively preserved GFRs. Our fully automated segmentation method was on the basis of a spatial prior probability map of the location of kidneys in abdominal magnetic resonance images and regional mapping with total variation regularization and propagated shape constraints that were formulated into a level set framework. T2-weighted magnetic resonance image sets of 120 kidneys were selected from 60 patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and divided into the training and test datasets. The performance of the automated method in reference to the manual method was assessed by means of two metrics: Dice similarity coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient of segmented kidney volume. The training and test sets were swapped for crossvalidation and reanalyzed. RESULTS: Successful segmentation of kidneys was performed with the automated method in all test patients. The segmented kidney volumes ranged from 177.2 to 2634 ml (mean, 885.4±569.7 ml). The mean Dice similarity coefficient ±SD between the automated and manual methods was 0.88±0.08. The mean correlation coefficient between the two segmentation methods for the segmented volume measurements was 0.97 (P<0.001 for each crossvalidation set). The results from the crossvalidation sets were highly comparable. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a fully automated method for segmentation of kidneys from abdominal magnetic resonance images in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease with varying kidney volumes. The performance of the automated method was in good agreement with that of manual method.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our study developed a fully automated method for segmentation and volumetric measurements of kidneys from magnetic resonance images in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and assessed the performance of the automated method with the reference manual segmentation method. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Study patients were selected from the Consortium for Radiologic Imaging Studies of Polycystic Kidney Disease. At the enrollment of the Consortium for Radiologic Imaging Studies of Polycystic Kidney Disease Study in 2000, patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease were between 15 and 46 years of age with relatively preserved GFRs. Our fully automated segmentation method was on the basis of a spatial prior probability map of the location of kidneys in abdominal magnetic resonance images and regional mapping with total variation regularization and propagated shape constraints that were formulated into a level set framework. T2-weighted magnetic resonance image sets of 120 kidneys were selected from 60 patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and divided into the training and test datasets. The performance of the automated method in reference to the manual method was assessed by means of two metrics: Dice similarity coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient of segmented kidney volume. The training and test sets were swapped for crossvalidation and reanalyzed. RESULTS: Successful segmentation of kidneys was performed with the automated method in all test patients. The segmented kidney volumes ranged from 177.2 to 2634 ml (mean, 885.4±569.7 ml). The mean Dice similarity coefficient ±SD between the automated and manual methods was 0.88±0.08. The mean correlation coefficient between the two segmentation methods for the segmented volume measurements was 0.97 (P<0.001 for each crossvalidation set). The results from the crossvalidation sets were highly comparable. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a fully automated method for segmentation of kidneys from abdominal magnetic resonance images in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease with varying kidney volumes. The performance of the automated method was in good agreement with that of manual method.
Authors: Benjamin A Cohen; Irina Barash; Danny C Kim; Matthew D Sanger; James S Babb; Hersh Chandarana Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kyungsoo Bae; Bumwoo Park; Hongliang Sun; Jinhong Wang; Cheng Tao; Arlene B Chapman; Vicente E Torres; Jared J Grantham; Michal Mrug; William M Bennett; Michael F Flessner; Doug P Landsittel; Kyongtae T Bae Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kyongtae T Bae; Fang Zhu; Arlene B Chapman; Vicente E Torres; Jared J Grantham; Lisa M Guay-Woodford; Deborah A Baumgarten; Bernard F King; Louis H Wetzel; Philip J Kenney; Marijn E Brummer; William M Bennett; Saulo Klahr; Catherine M Meyers; Xiaoling Zhang; Paul A Thompson; J Philip Miller Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Luc Breysem; Stéphanie De Rechter; Frederik De Keyzer; Maria Helena Smet; Bert Bammens; Maria Van Dyck; Maarten Hofmans; Raymond Oyen; Elena Levtchenko; Djalila Mekahli Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 3.714
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: Youngwoo Kim; Sonu K Bae; Tianming Cheng; Cheng Tao; Yinghui Ge; Arlene B Chapman; Vincente E Torres; Alan S L Yu; Michal Mrug; William M Bennett; Michael F Flessner; Doug P Landsittel; Kyongtae T Bae Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Kanishka Sharma; Christian Rupprecht; Anna Caroli; Maria Carolina Aparicio; Andrea Remuzzi; Maximilian Baust; Nassir Navab Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 4.379