| Literature DB >> 28196476 |
Muhammad Laiq Ur Rahman Shahid1, Teodora Chitiboi2,3, Tetyana Ivanovska4, Vladimir Molchanov2, Henry Völzke5, Lars Linsen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a public health problem. Detailed analysis of the para-pharyngeal fat pads can help us to understand the pathogenesis of OSA and may mediate the intervention of this sleeping disorder. A reliable and automatic para-pharyngeal fat pads segmentation technique plays a vital role in investigating larger data bases to identify the anatomic risk factors for the OSA.Entities:
Keywords: Interactive visual analysis tool; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); Para-pharyngeal fat pads segmentation; Upper airway segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28196476 PMCID: PMC5309996 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-017-0179-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Diverse appearance of para-pharyngeal fat pads on axial slices
Fig. 2Complete segmentation pipeline
Fig. 3Red color represents the retropalatal region of oropharynx
Fig. 4Fat pad candidates on axial slice
Fig. 5Histograms of individual features. Top: Elongation values of 3D objects. Bottom: Eccentricity values of 3D objects
Fig. 6Top: Default configuration of star-coordinate widget. Bottom: Projected space of default star-coordinates widget
Fig. 7Top: Star-coordinate widget configuration. Bottom: Red and blue samples represent fat pad and non fat pad objects, respectively, in projected view
Fig. 8Left: Surrounding regions connecting with fat pad. Right: Exclusion of surrounding regions
Fig. 9Different views of segmented fat pads
Evaluation and comparison of our segmentation results with observer2 against observer1
| Masks | DICE | TPVF | FPVF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| Observer2 | Avg. | 80.4 | 82.5 | 22.8 |
| Std. | 3.0 | 6.5 | 10.9 | |
| Automatic | Avg. | 77.9 | 79.1 | 24.1 |
| Std. | 4.1 | 6.8 | 10.5 |
Fig. 10Box and whisker plot to compare our segmentation results with manual segmentation of observer2 against observer1
Fig. 11Comparison of different segmentation techniques. Results of fat pads segmentation are shown in red color. a region growing b fuzzy c-means c multiOtsu thresholding d watershed transformation e level sets f our algorithm
Comparison of our segmentation results with generally available segmentation methods
| Masks | DICE | TPVF | FPVF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| Our Algorithm | Avg. | 77.9 | 79.1 | 24.1 |
| Std. | 4.1 | 6.8 | 10.5 | |
| Region Growing | Avg. | 35.8 | 46.9 | 181.8 |
| Std. | 18.3 | 27.3 | 289.3 | |
| Fuzzy c-means | Avg. | 43.4 | 52.3 | 92.1 |
| Std. | 13.3 | 20.3 | 78.4 | |
| MultiOtsu | Avg. | 39.8 | 71.6 | 226.4 |
| Std. | 12.4 | 10.6 | 151.5 | |
| Watersheds | Avg. | 28.6 | 19.8 | 10.8 |
| Std. | 23.7 | 18.3 | 14.1 | |
| Level Sets | Avg. | 40.0 | 43.8 | 68.3 |
| Std. | 20.6 | 31.8 | 119.0 |