| Literature DB >> 26838596 |
Vedpal Singh1, Irraivan Elamvazuthi2, Varun Jeoti3, John George4, Akshya Swain5, Dileep Kumar6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) is considered as the weakest ankle ligament that is most prone to injuries. Ultrasound imaging with its portable, non-invasive and non-ionizing radiation nature is increasingly being used for ATFL diagnosis. However, diagnosis of ATFL injuries requires its segmentation from ultrasound images that is a challenging task due to the existence of homogeneous intensity regions, homogeneous textures and low contrast regions in ultrasound images. To address these issues, this research has developed an efficient ATFL segmentation framework that would contribute to accurate and efficient diagnosis of ATFL injuries for clinical evaluation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26838596 PMCID: PMC4736278 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0129-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1Challenges in ultrasound images of ATFL a ATFL anatomy and homogeneous intensity region, b corresponding intensity graph, c homogeneous textures, and d low contrast regions
Fig. 2The developed segmentation framework for ankle ATFL ligament
Fig. 3Steps showing ATFL segmentation using developed framework: a input 2D ultrasound image of ATFL region, b ROI initialised image after visual inspection by experts, c contrast enhanced image after applying adaptive histogram equalisation, d optimized image as a result of PSO, e process of contour evolution and ATFL extraction using Chan–Vese method (1–2–3) and, f ATFL extraction as binary image and hole filling (1–2)
Fig. 4Manual segmentation of ATFL ligament by the expert
ATFL segmentation from 2D ultrasound images: steps involved (first column) and corresponding outcomes at each stages of developed framework for four different samples images (column 2–5)
Computational performance evaluation of the developed framework
Intra-observer reliability calculated among three experts’ for normal, tear and thickened ligaments segmentation from 2D ultrasound images
| True positive rate estimation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Tear | Thickened | |
| Expert 1–2 | 0.9345 | 0.9533 | 0.8765 |
| Expert 2–3 | 0.8812 | 0.9268 | 0.9053 |
| Expert 1–3 | 0.9165 | 0.9645 | 0.9434 |
Performance evaluation: sensitivity, specificity and accuracy measurements
| Category of subjects | Patient ID | Type of used data | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy subjects | 1 | Normal | 98.7 | 96.3 | 96.6 |
| 2 | Normal | 99.0 | 96.5 | 96.8 | |
| 3 | Normal | 99.0 | 96.4 | 96.8 | |
| 4 | Normal | 98.3 | 96.9 | 97.1 | |
| 5 | Normal | 98.9 | 96.6 | 97.0 | |
| 6 | Normal | 98.8 | 96.4 | 96.7 | |
| 7 | Normal | 99.3 | 96.6 | 96.9 | |
| 8 | Normal | 97.7 | 96.3 | 96.4 | |
| 9 | Normal | 99.2 | 96.3 | 96.7 | |
| 10 | Normal | 97.1 | 96.8 | 96.9 | |
| 11 | Normal | 97.7 | 96.8 | 96.9 | |
| 12 | Normal | 98.2 | 96.3 | 96.6 | |
| Subjects with injuries | 13 | Tear | 97.6 | 96.8 | 96.9 |
| 14 | Tear | 97.2 | 97.2 | 97.2 | |
| 15 | Tear | 95.7 | 97.1 | 96.9 | |
| 16 | Tear | 95.8 | 97.0 | 96.8 | |
| 17 | Tear | 98.0 | 96.6 | 96.8 | |
| 18 | Tear | 98.8 | 97.0 | 97.2 | |
| 19 | Tear | 99.6 | 96.3 | 96.8 | |
| 20 | Tear | 99.2 | 96.2 | 96.6 | |
| 21 | Thickened | 99.0 | 96.2 | 96.6 | |
| 22 | Thickened | 98.9 | 96.7 | 97.0 | |
| 23 | Thickened | 98.1 | 96.2 | 96.4 | |
| 24 | Thickened | 99.0 | 96.5 | 96.8 | |
| 25 | Thickened | 98.5 | 96.6 | 96.9 | |
| Average | 98.3 | 96.6 | 96.8 | ||
| Standard deviation | 2.02 | 0.29 | 0.20 | ||
| Coefficient of variation | 0.020 | 0.003 | 0.002 | ||
Average similarity measure with Hausdorff and Jaccard indices
| Distance and similarity measures | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comparative analysis | Hausdorff index | Jaccard’s index |
| The developed framework versus experts | 14.2 | 0.91 |
| The Chen–Vese method versus experts [ | 19.2 | 0.71 |
| Traditional active contour method versus experts [ | 41.3 | 0.42 |
Average segmented area and area ratio of the obtained results
| Method | Segmented area (pixels) |
|---|---|
| The developed framework | 16,941 |
| Experts | 17,045 |
| The Chen–Vese method [ | 17,242 |
| Traditional active contour method [ | 50,045 |
Clinical significance of the developed framework
| Type of injury | Measures | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal (12 subjects) | Average | 98.70 | 96.44 | 96.74 |
| Standard deviation | 0.39 | 0.23 | 0.24 | |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 | |
| Tear (8 subjects) | Average | 97.73 | 96.77 | 96.90 |
| Standard deviation | 1.46 | 0.37 | 0.21 | |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.002 | |
| Thickened (5 subjects) | Average | 98.49 | 96.52 | 96.78 |
| Standard deviation | 0.69 | 0.22 | 0.19 | |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Fig. 5Assessment of segmented area for normal and injured ATFL ligaments