Literature DB >> 33033803

Three-dimensional MRI Bone Models of the Glenohumeral Joint Using Deep Learning: Evaluation of Normal Anatomy and Glenoid Bone Loss.

Tatiane Cantarelli Rodrigues1, Cem M Deniz1, Erin F Alaia1, Natalia Gorelik1, James S Babb1, Jared Dublin1, Soterios Gyftopoulos1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To use convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for fully automated MRI segmentation of the glenohumeral joint and evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) MRI models created with this method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Shoulder MR images of 100 patients (average age, 44 years; range, 14-80 years; 60 men) were retrospectively collected from September 2013 to August 2018. CNNs were used to develop a fully automated segmentation model for proton density-weighted images. Shoulder MR images from an additional 50 patients (mean age, 33 years; range, 16-65 years; 35 men) were retrospectively collected from May 2014 to April 2019 to create 3D MRI glenohumeral models by transfer learning using Dixon-based sequences. Two musculoskeletal radiologists performed measurements on fully and semiautomated segmented 3D MRI models to assess glenohumeral anatomy, glenoid bone loss (GBL), and their impact on treatment selection. Performance of the CNNs was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), sensitivity, precision, and surface-based distance measurements. Measurements were compared using matched-pairs Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS: The two-dimensional CNN model for the humerus and glenoid achieved a DSC of 0.95 and 0.86, a precision of 95.5% and 87.5%, an average precision of 98.6% and 92.3%, and a sensitivity of 94.8% and 86.1%, respectively. The 3D CNN model, for the humerus and glenoid, achieved a DSC of 0.95 and 0.86, precision of 95.1% and 87.1%, an average precision of 98.7% and 91.9%, and a sensitivity of 94.9% and 85.6%, respectively. There was no difference between glenoid and humeral head width fully and semiautomated 3D model measurements (P value range, .097-.99).
CONCLUSION: CNNs could potentially be used in clinical practice to provide rapid and accurate 3D MRI glenohumeral bone models and GBL measurements. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020. 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33033803      PMCID: PMC7529433          DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2020190116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell        ISSN: 2638-6100


  19 in total

1.  Deep convolutional neural network and 3D deformable approach for tissue segmentation in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Fang Liu; Zhaoye Zhou; Hyungseok Jang; Alexey Samsonov; Gengyan Zhao; Richard Kijowski
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Deep feature learning for knee cartilage segmentation using a triplanar convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Adhish Prasoon; Kersten Petersen; Christian Igel; François Lauze; Erik Dam; Mads Nielsen
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2013

3.  Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability.

Authors:  Michael A Rerko; Xueliang Pan; Chris Donaldson; Grant L Jones; Julie Y Bishop
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  3DMR osseous reconstructions of the shoulder using a gradient-echo based two-point Dixon reconstruction: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Soterios Gyftopoulos; Avner Yemin; Thomas Mulholland; Michael Bloom; Pippa Storey; Christian Geppert; Michael P Recht
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Use of 3D MR reconstructions in the evaluation of glenoid bone loss: a clinical study.

Authors:  Soterios Gyftopoulos; Luis S Beltran; Avner Yemin; Eric Strauss; Robert Meislin; Laith Jazrawi; Michael P Recht
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Deep convolutional neural network for segmentation of knee joint anatomy.

Authors:  Zhaoye Zhou; Gengyan Zhao; Richard Kijowski; Fang Liu
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Use of 2D U-Net Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Cartilage and Meniscus Segmentation of Knee MR Imaging Data to Determine Relaxometry and Morphometry.

Authors:  Berk Norman; Valentina Pedoia; Sharmila Majumdar
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using Dixon 3D FLASH sequence.

Authors:  Mohammad Samim; Nima Eftekhary; Jonathan M Vigdorchik; Ameer Elbuluk; Roy Davidovitch; Thomas Youm; Soterios Gyftopoulos
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Segmentation of the Proximal Femur from MR Images using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.

Authors:  Cem M Deniz; Siyuan Xiang; R Spencer Hallyburton; Arakua Welbeck; James S Babb; Stephen Honig; Kyunghyun Cho; Gregory Chang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool.

Authors:  Abdel Aziz Taha; Allan Hanbury
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 1.930

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Studying osteoarthritis with artificial intelligence applied to magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Francesco Calivà; Nikan K Namiri; Maureen Dubreuil; Valentina Pedoia; Eugene Ozhinsky; Sharmila Majumdar
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 20.543

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.