| Literature DB >> 34208596 |
Vidhya V1, Anjan Gudigar2, U Raghavendra2, Ajay Hegde3,4, Girish R Menon4, Filippo Molinari5, Edward J Ciaccio6, U Rajendra Acharya7,8,9.
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) occurs due to the disruption in the normal functioning of the brain by sudden external forces. The primary and secondary injuries due to TBI include intracranial hematoma (ICH), raised intracranial pressure (ICP), and midline shift (MLS), which can result in significant lifetime disabilities and death. Hence, early diagnosis of TBI is crucial to improve patient outcome. Computed tomography (CT) is the preferred modality of choice to assess the severity of TBI. However, manual visualization and inspection of hematoma and its complications from CT scans is a highly operator-dependent and time-consuming task, which can lead to an inappropriate or delayed prognosis. The development of computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems could be helpful for accurate, early management of TBI. In this paper, a systematic review of prevailing CAD systems for the detection of hematoma, raised ICP, and MLS in non-contrast axial CT brain images is presented. We also suggest future research to enhance the performance of CAD for early and accurate TBI diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: CAD; computed tomography; elevated ICP; intracranial hematoma; midline shift; traumatic brain injury (TBI)
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34208596 PMCID: PMC8296416 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126499
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Relationship between hematoma and secondary injuries in TBI.
General categorization of approaches employed by CAD systems to assess TBI.
| Pathology | CAD Approaches | Techniques | TBI-Associated Abnormalities | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICH Detection | ICH Volume Estimation | ICP | MLS | |||
| TBI | Feature learning based | Feature based | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | - |
| Segmentation as pixel-wise/voxel-wise classification task | ✓ | - | - | - | ||
| Segmentation based on image delineation | ✓ | - | - | - | ||
| Landmark and symmetry based | - | - | - | ✓ | ||
| Deep learning based | Classification | ✓ | ✓ | - | ✓ | |
| Segmentation | ✓ | - | - | - | ||
| Segmentation and classification | ✓ | - | - | - | ||
Figure 2Flow diagram of the article selection process.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the study.
| Publication Category | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Datasets used and study outcomes |
Automated analysis of ICH, ICP, and MLS in humans due to TBI. CT imaging to perform automated detection and assessment of ICH, ICP, and MLS. Standard datasets for automated detection and assessment of ICH, ICP, and MLS. |
Animal subjects. Treatment strategies related to ICH, ICP, and MLS. ICH, ICP, and MLS caused by conditions other than TBI. |
| Research design and methodology |
Automated segmentation and binary/multiclass classification of ICH, ICP prediction and estimation, MLS detection and estimation, and tracing the deformed midline. Feature-based techniques or deep learning-based architectures for automated analysis and quantification of ICH, ICP, and MLS. |
Statistical methods for detection for ICH, ICP, and MLS. Biochemical research pertaining to ICH, ICP, and MLS. |
|
| Peer reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and systematic reviews | Scientific abstracts, letters to the editor, and articles without full text |
|
| 2007–2021 | Before 2007 |
|
| English | Written in other languages |
Figure 3Year-wise distribution of papers reviewed for assessing TBI based on ICH, ICP, and MLS.
Figure 4Sample CT images from CQ500 dataset.
Figure 5Schema of a typical feature learning-based approach for TBI.
Figure 6General architecture of a deep learning model for TBI diagnosis.
Summary of different feature-based techniques for hematoma detection.
| Authors | CT Dataset | Method | Classifier | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raghavendra et al. [ | 1603 | Entropy-based nonlinear features | PNN | Acc: 97.37 |
| Liu et al. [ | 11011 | DWT features, statistical features, GLCM texture features | SVM | Acc: 80 |
| Sharma and Venugopalan [ | 100 | Shape, intensity, and GLCM texture features | ANN | Acc: 97 |
| Tong et al. [ | 450 | LBP texture features and histogram features | SVM | Acc: 90 |
| Rajini and Bhavani [ | 80 | DWT features | SVM | Acc: 98 |
| Li et al. [ | 129 | Distance features based on landmarks | Bayesian | Sen: 100 |
| Chawla et al. [ | 35 | Dissimilarity of intensity features in brain hemispheres | - | Acc: 90 |
| Shahangian et al. [ | 627 | MDRLSE + texture and shape features | Hierarchical classifier | Acc: 94.13 |
| Al-Ayoob et al. [ | 76 | Thresholding + region growing + shape features | Multinomial Logistic Regression | Acc: 92 |
| Xiao et al. [ | 48 | Multi-resolution thresholding + region growing + primary and derived features based on long and short axes | C4.5 | Acc: 0.975 |
| Yuh et al. [ | 273 | Thresholding, spatial filtering, and cluster analysis and classification based on location, size, and shape of clusters | - | Sen: 98 |
| Zaki et al. [ | 720 | FCM + multi-level thresholding + location and intensity features | - | Sen: 82.5% |
Summary of different techniques employed for hematoma segmentation.
| Authors | CT Dataset | Method | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chan [ | 62 | Top-hat transformation and symmetry detection for candidate detection + knowledge-based classification of normalised CT images | Sen: 100 |
| Liao et al. [ | 48 | Multiresolution binary level set method + decision rules | Overlap rate: 82 |
| Ray et al. [ | 590 | Knowledge driven thresholding + morphological operations + data fusion | Acc: 92.45 |
| Farzaneh et al. [ | 110 | SLIC + texture, spatial, and deep features + random forest + morphological operations + Gaussian smoothing | Precision: 76.12 |
| Farzaneh et al. [ | 866 | DRLSE + textural, statistical, and geometrical features + tree bagger classifier + multi-level thresholding | Sen: 85.02 |
| Scherer et al. [ | 58 | First- and second-order statistics + texture and threshold features + random forest methodology + morphological operations + Gaussian smoothing | Concordance correlation coefficient = 0.98 |
| Muschelli et al. [ | 10 | Intensity-based predictors + random forest classifier + thresholding | DSI: 0.899 |
| Qureshi et al. [ | 866 | ANN and active contours | Jaccard Index: 0.8689 ± 0.042 |
| Yao et al. [ | 2433 | SLIC + texture and statistical features + SVM + active contour model | Acc: 97 |
| Gillebert et al. [ | 500 | Threshold-based clustering + voxel-wise comparison of normalised and control Ct images using Crawford–Howell parametric | DSI: 0.89 |
| Kumar et al. [ | 35 | FCM clustering + entropy-based thresholding + DRLSE | Acc: 99.87 |
| Gautam and Raman [ | 20 | WMFCM clustering + wavelet-based thresholding | DSI: 0.82 |
| Nag et al. [ | 48 | Fuzzy-based intensifier + auto encoder + active contour Chan-Vese Model | Sen: 0.71 |
| Saenz et al. [ | 12 | Hough transform + region growing | Jaccard Index: 0.9005 |
| Bhadauria et al. [ | 100 | FCM clustering + region-based active contour method | Sen: 79.48 |
| Prakash et al. [ | 200 | Modified distance regularised level set evolution (MDRLSE) | Sen: 79.6 |
| Bardera et al. [ | 18 | Region growing | Matching ratio: 0.96 |
| Zhang et al. [ | 10 | Adaptive thresholding and case-based reasoning | Acc: 0.950 ± 0.015 |
Summary of different deep learning models for hematoma segmentation and classification.
| Authors | CT Dataset | Method | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevedello et al. [ | 76 | AI-based deep learning approach | Sen: 90 |
| Arbabshirani et al. [ | 46,583 | DCNN | Sen: 71.5 |
| Titano et al. [ | 37,236 | 3D-CNN | AUC: 0.88 |
| Grewal et al. [ | 77 | Recurrent Attention DenseNet (RADnet) | Acc: 81.82 |
| Chilamkurthy et al. [ | 21,095 in Qure25k and 491 in CQ500 | U-Net-based architecture + modified ResNet18 + random forest classifier | Sen: 92 |
| Dawud et al. [ | 12,635 | Modified pre-trained AlexNet SVM model | Acc: 93.48 |
| Majumdar et al. [ | 134 | Modified U-Net model | Sen: 81 |
| Lee et al. [ | 904 | Ensemble model comprised of VGG16, ResNet-50, Inception-v3, and Inception-ResNet-v2 | Sen: 78.3 |
| Ye et al. [ | 76,621 | 3D CNN-RNN | Sen: 80 |
| Kuo et al. [ | 4396 | PatchFCN | AUC = 0.991 ± 0.006 |
| Yao et al. [ | 2433 | Dilated CNN | Sen: 0.81 |
| Yao et al. [ | 828 | Multi-view CNN + volume and shape features + random forest classifier | Dice coefficient: 0.697 |
| Cho et al. [ | 135,974 | Cascaded CNN and dual fully convolutional networks (FCNs) | Sen: 97.91 |
| He [ | 874,039 | SE—ResNeXt50 and EfficientNet-B3 CNN architectures | Logarithmic Loss = 0.0548 |
| Ko et al. [ | 5,244,234 | CNN-LSTM | Logarithmic Loss = 0.075 |
| Chang et al. [ | 536,266 | Hybrid 3D/2D mask ROI-based CNN | Sen: 95 |
| Arab et al. [ | 64 | CNN—DS | Precision: 0.85 |
| Desai et al. [ | 170 | Pre-trained augmented Google Net | AUC = 1.00 |
| Hssayeni et al. [ | 82 | U-Net | Sen: 97.28 |
| Irene et al. [ | 27 | DGCNN | Sen: 97.8 |
| Anupama et al. [ | 82 | GrabCut-based segmentation and synergic deep learning | Acc: 95.73 |
| Watanabe et al. [ | 40 | U-Net | Acc: 87.5 |
| Sharrock et al. [ | 500 | 3D VNET 128 | Median Dice coefficient: 0.919 |
| Mansour et al. [ | 82 | Kapoor’s thresholding + elephant herd optimisation + Inception v4 network + multilayer perceptron | Acc: 95.06 |
| Kuang et al. [ | 30 | U-Net + multi-region contour evolution | Dice coefficient: 0.72 |
Summary of different CAD models for hematoma volume estimation.
| Authors | CT Dataset | Method | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Farzaneh et al. [ | 110 | 3D resolution of the segmented ICH mask | F1: 98.22 |
| Sun and Sun [ | 20 | Gengon and truncated pyramid approximations | Processing time <2 s |
| Saenz et al. [ | 12 | Voxel size multiplied by the number of voxels | - |
| Scherer et al. [ | 58 | Summing of voxel volumes | Concordance correlation coefficient with manual estimation = 0.99 |
| Bardera et al. [ | 18 | Individual voxel volume multiplied by the number of voxels | Mean correspondence ratio = 0.74 and mean matching ratio = 0.80 |
| Deep Learning-Based Methods | |||
| Chang et al. [ | 536,266 | Hybrid 3D/2D mask ROI-based CNN | Pearson correlation coefficients: |
| Arab et al. [ | 64 | CNN—DS | Average disagreement rate = 0.08 ± 0.02 |
| Jain et al. [ | 39 | U-Net based FCN | Acc: 0.92 |
| Irene et al. [ | 27 | DGCNN + SVM with RBF kernel | Mean square error = 3.67 × 104 |
| Sharrock et al. [ | 500 | 3D VNET 128 | Volume correlation of 0.979 |
Summary of different CT-based machine learning models to evaluate ICP.
| Authors | CT Dataset | Method | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. [ | 56 | Texture features + SVM | Acc: 81.79 |
| Chen et al. [ | 57 | MLS, hematoma volume, textural patterns, and patient medical data + SVM | Acc: 70.2 |
| Pappu et al. [ | 20 | Segmentation of brain parenchyma + ratio of CSF to the size of intracranial vault computations (CSFv/ICVv) | Acc: 67 |
| Aghazadeh et al. [ | 59 | Fully anisotropic Morlet wavelet transform + KNN | Acc: 86.5 |
| Qi et al. [ | 57 | MLS, intracranial air cavities, ventricle size, texture patterns, blood amount, and clinical data + SVM | Acc: 73.7 |
| Chen et al. [ | 391 | MLS, hematoma volume, texture features, demographic information, and severity score + SVM | Acc: 70 |
Summary of different CAD schemes for MLS estimation.
| Authors | CT Dataset | Method | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landmark-Based Methods | |||
| Yuh et al. [ | 273 | CT density (Hounsfield units) thresholds, spatial filtering, and cluster analysis | Sen: 100 |
| Xiao et al. [ | 80 | Multiresolution binary level set method and Hough transform | Maximal error: 2 mm |
| Chen et al. [ | 391 | Gaussian mixture model + EM + multiple regions shape matching + texture feature extraction | Acc: 70 |
| Liu et al. [ | 7040 | Anatomical marker model and marker candidate selection using spatial features | Area ratio: 0.0766 |
| Hooshmand et al. [ | 170 | Ventricular geometric patterns and anatomical information | Acc: 68 |
| Symmetry-Based Methods | |||
| Liu et al. [ | 11 | H-MLS | - |
| Liao et al. [ | 86 | Bezier Curve and GA | Acc: 95 |
| Wang et al. [ | 41 | Weighted midline + maximum distance | Acc: 92.68 |
| CNN-based Methods | |||
| Chilamkurthy et al. [ | 21,095 in Qure25k and 491 in CQ500 | Modified ResNet18 + random forest classifier | Sen: 0.9385 |
| Jain et al. [ | 38 | U-Net based FCN | Acc: 0.89 |
| Wei et al. [ | 640 | Regression-based line detection network (RLDN) | F1 score: 0.78 |
| Nag et al. [ | 80 | U-Net | Average error by location = 1.29 mm |
Figure 7Accuracy of various automated techniques to classify ICH and ICP.