| Literature DB >> 31856807 |
Shuang Song1, Chenbing Du1, Ying Chen1, Danni Ai1, Hong Song2, Yong Huang1, Yongtian Wang1,3, Jian Yang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic vascular segmentation in X-ray angiographic image sequence is of crucial interest, for instance, for better quantifying coronary arteries in diagnostic and interventional procedures.Entities:
Keywords: Multi-feature; Vascular enhancement; Vascular segmentation; X-ray angiographic image sequence
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31856807 PMCID: PMC6921392 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0966-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Fig. 1An example of masks that are utilized for quantitatively validation of the proposed method. a the original image; b global mask; c local mask
Fig. 2An example of extracted vascular images by the proposed method. (a1)-(a3), (c1)-(c3) original XRA images in two different sequences, (b1)-(b3), (d1)-(d3) extracted vascular images by IFC-RPCA method
Fig. 3Comparison of the extracted vascular images on six randomly selected images from six different sequences by four methods. (a1-f1): original XRA images; (a2-f2), (a3-f3), (a4-f4) and (a5-f5): extracted vascular images by MER, ORPCA, MCR-RPCA and IFC-RPCA methods
Comparison of local and global CNR by four different methods, including MER, ORPCA, MCR-RPCA and IFC-RPCA over 22 XRA images
| Methods | Local CNR | Global CNR |
|---|---|---|
| Original Image | 1.2175 ± 0.3838 | 0.8259 ± 0.2685 |
| MER | 0.1259 ± 0.0597 | 0.1709 ± 0.1143 |
| ORPCA | 3.8914 ± 0.5323 | 5.6527 ± 1.0719 |
| MCR-RPCA | 2.9081 ± 0.7021 | 4.8105 ± 1.3528 |
| IFC-RPCA | 4.2882 ± 0.7430 | 6.6344 ± 1.0849 |
Fig. 4Simulated image with low dose contrast agent. (a) original image; (b) enhanced image; (c) simulated image
Fig. 5Enhanced results based on simulated images with low dose contrast agent. a and c simulated images; b and d enhanced results
Fig. 6Segmentation results by the proposed method. (a1)-(c1) original angiograms; (a2)-(c2) ground truth; (a3)-(c3) Multi-feature fused restuls; (a4)-(c4) segmented results; (a5)-(c5) color map between the ground truth and segmented results. Red color: correctly identified vessel pixels, green color: incorrectly identified vessel pixels and blue color: incorrectly identified background pixels
Fig. 7Qualitative comparison between different methods. (a1)-(d1) original angiograms; (a2)-(d2) ground truth; (a3)-(d3) segmented results by LevelSet; (a4)-(d4) segmented results by FC-CRF; (a5)-(d5) segmented results by the proposed method
Quantitative segmenation comparison of the proposed method with CF-CRF and LevelSet
| methods | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| LevelSet | 0.7025 | 0.7430 | 0.7222 |
| CF-CRF | 0.6314 | 0.6875 | 0.6583 |
| proposed method | 0.7378 | 0.7960 | 0.7658 |