David J Winkel1, Thomas J Weikert2, Hanns-Christian Breit2, Guillaume Chabin3, Eli Gibson3, Tobias J Heye2, Dorin Comaniciu3, Daniel T Boll2. 1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Siemens Healthineers, Medical Imaging Technologies, Princeton, NJ, USA. Electronic address: davidjean.winkel@usb.ch. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Siemens Healthineers, Medical Imaging Technologies, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) based software solution tested on liver volumetric analyses and to compare the results to the manual contour segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively obtained 462 multiphasic CT datasets with six series for each patient: three different contrast phases and two slice thickness reconstructions (1.5/5 mm), totaling 2772 series. AI-based liver volumes were determined using multi-scale deep-reinforcement learning for 3D body markers detection and 3D structure segmentation. The algorithm was trained for liver volumetry on approximately 5000 datasets. We computed the absolute error of each automatically- and manually-derived volume relative to the mean manual volume. The mean processing time/dataset and method was recorded. Variations of liver volumes were compared using univariate generalized linear model analyses. A subgroup of 60 datasets was manually segmented by three radiologists, with a further subgroup of 20 segmented three times by each, to compare the automatically-derived results with the ground-truth. RESULTS: The mean absolute error of the automatically-derived measurement was 44.3 mL (representing 2.37 % of the averaged liver volumes). The liver volume was neither dependent on the contrast phase (p = 0.697), nor on the slice thickness (p = 0.446). The mean processing time/dataset with the algorithm was 9.94 s (sec) compared to manual segmentation with 219.34 s. We found an excellent agreement between both approaches with an ICC value of 0.996. CONCLUSION: The results of our study demonstrate that AI-powered fully automated liver volumetric analyses can be done with excellent accuracy, reproducibility, robustness, speed and agreement with the manual segmentation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) based software solution tested on liver volumetric analyses and to compare the results to the manual contour segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively obtained 462 multiphasic CT datasets with six series for each patient: three different contrast phases and two slice thickness reconstructions (1.5/5 mm), totaling 2772 series. AI-based liver volumes were determined using multi-scale deep-reinforcement learning for 3D body markers detection and 3D structure segmentation. The algorithm was trained for liver volumetry on approximately 5000 datasets. We computed the absolute error of each automatically- and manually-derived volume relative to the mean manual volume. The mean processing time/dataset and method was recorded. Variations of liver volumes were compared using univariate generalized linear model analyses. A subgroup of 60 datasets was manually segmented by three radiologists, with a further subgroup of 20 segmented three times by each, to compare the automatically-derived results with the ground-truth. RESULTS: The mean absolute error of the automatically-derived measurement was 44.3 mL (representing 2.37 % of the averaged liver volumes). The liver volume was neither dependent on the contrast phase (p = 0.697), nor on the slice thickness (p = 0.446). The mean processing time/dataset with the algorithm was 9.94 s (sec) compared to manual segmentation with 219.34 s. We found an excellent agreement between both approaches with an ICC value of 0.996. CONCLUSION: The results of our study demonstrate that AI-powered fully automated liver volumetric analyses can be done with excellent accuracy, reproducibility, robustness, speed and agreement with the manual segmentation.
Authors: Ana Barragán-Montero; Umair Javaid; Gilmer Valdés; Dan Nguyen; Paul Desbordes; Benoit Macq; Siri Willems; Liesbeth Vandewinckele; Mats Holmström; Fredrik Löfman; Steven Michiels; Kevin Souris; Edmond Sterpin; John A Lee Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-05-09 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Sven Koitka; Phillip Gudlin; Jens M Theysohn; Arzu Oezcelik; Dieter P Hoyer; Murat Dayangac; René Hosch; Johannes Haubold; Nils Flaschel; Felix Nensa; Eugen Malamutmann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Lorraine Abel; Jakob Wasserthal; Thomas Weikert; Alexander W Sauter; Ivan Nesic; Marko Obradovic; Shan Yang; Sebastian Manneck; Carl Glessgen; Johanna M Ospel; Bram Stieltjes; Daniel T Boll; Björn Friebe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-19