BACKGROUND: The ABC/2 method is usually applied to evaluate intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume on computed tomography (CT), although it might be inaccurate and not applicable in estimating extradural or subdural hemorrhage (EDH, SDH) volume due to their irregular hematoma shapes. This study aimed to evaluate deep framework optimized for the segmentation and quantification of ICH, EDH, and SDH. METHODS: The training datasets were 3,000 images retrospectively collected from a collaborating hospital (Hospital A) and segmented by the Dense U-Net framework. Three experienced radiologists determined the ground truth by marking the pixels as hemorrhage area. We utilized the Dice and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) to test the reliability of the ground truth. Moreover, the testing datasets consisted of 211 images (internal test) from Hospital A, and 86 ICH images (external test) from another hospital (Hospital B). In this study, we chose scatter plots, ICC, and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) with ground truth to evaluate the performance of the deep framework. Furthermore, to validate the effectiveness of the deep framework, we did a comparative analysis of the hemorrhage volume estimation between the deep model and the ABC/2 method. RESULTS: The high Dice (0.89-0.95) and ICC (0.985-0.997) showed the consistency of the manual segmentations among the radiologists and the reliability of the ground truth. For the internal test, the Dice coefficients of ICH, EDH, and SDH were 0.90 ± 0.06, 0.88 ± 0.12, and 0.82 ± 0.16, respectively. For the external test, the segmentation Dice was 0.86 ± 0.09. Comparatively, the ICC and PCC of ICH volume estimations were 0.99 performed by Dense U-Net that overmatched the ABC/2 method. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the excellent performance of hematoma segmentation and volume evaluation based on Dense U-Net, which indicated our deep framework might contribute to efficiently developing treatment strategies for intracranial hemorrhage in clinics.
BACKGROUND: The ABC/2 method is usually applied to evaluate intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume on computed tomography (CT), although it might be inaccurate and not applicable in estimating extradural or subdural hemorrhage (EDH, SDH) volume due to their irregular hematoma shapes. This study aimed to evaluate deep framework optimized for the segmentation and quantification of ICH, EDH, and SDH. METHODS: The training datasets were 3,000 images retrospectively collected from a collaborating hospital (Hospital A) and segmented by the Dense U-Net framework. Three experienced radiologists determined the ground truth by marking the pixels as hemorrhage area. We utilized the Dice and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) to test the reliability of the ground truth. Moreover, the testing datasets consisted of 211 images (internal test) from Hospital A, and 86 ICH images (external test) from another hospital (Hospital B). In this study, we chose scatter plots, ICC, and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) with ground truth to evaluate the performance of the deep framework. Furthermore, to validate the effectiveness of the deep framework, we did a comparative analysis of the hemorrhage volume estimation between the deep model and the ABC/2 method. RESULTS: The high Dice (0.89-0.95) and ICC (0.985-0.997) showed the consistency of the manual segmentations among the radiologists and the reliability of the ground truth. For the internal test, the Dice coefficients of ICH, EDH, and SDH were 0.90 ± 0.06, 0.88 ± 0.12, and 0.82 ± 0.16, respectively. For the external test, the segmentation Dice was 0.86 ± 0.09. Comparatively, the ICC and PCC of ICH volume estimations were 0.99 performed by Dense U-Net that overmatched the ABC/2 method. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the excellent performance of hematoma segmentation and volume evaluation based on Dense U-Net, which indicated our deep framework might contribute to efficiently developing treatment strategies for intracranial hemorrhage in clinics.
Authors: Hagen B Huttner; Thorsten Steiner; Marius Hartmann; Martin Köhrmann; Eric Juettler; Stephan Mueller; Johannes Wikner; Uta Meyding-Lamade; Peter Schramm; Stefan Schwab; Peter D Schellinger Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Moritz Scherer; Jonas Cordes; Alexander Younsi; Yasemin-Aylin Sahin; Michael Götz; Markus Möhlenbruch; Christian Stock; Julian Bösel; Andreas Unterberg; Klaus Maier-Hein; Berk Orakcioglu Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ran Liu; Haijiao Li; Ya Hua; Richard F Keep; Jiangxi Xiao; Guohua Xi; Yining Huang Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Shadi Yaghi; Amelia K Boehme; Jamil Dibu; Christopher R Leon Guerrero; Syed Ali; Sheryl Martin-Schild; Kara A Sands; Ali Reza Noorian; Christina A Blum; Shuchi Chaudhary; Lee H Schwamm; David S Liebeskind; Randolph S Marshall; Joshua Z Willey Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: A David Mendelow; Barbara A Gregson; Elise N Rowan; Gordon D Murray; Anil Gholkar; Patrick M Mitchell Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 79.321