| Literature DB >> 34366724 |
Ting Liu1, Ying Xu1, Yujuan An2, Hongzhou Ge1.
Abstract
This paper aimed to explore segmentation effects of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of the inner auditory canal of patients with Meniere's disease under the intelligent segmentation method of the inner ear based on three-dimensional (3D) level set (IS3DLS). The statistical shape model and the level set segmentation algorithm were combined to propose the IS3DLS. First, the shape training samples of the inner ear model were determined, and the results were manually segmented to further obtain region of interest (ROI) of the inner ear. The IS3DLS was employed to accurately segment MRI images of the inner auditory canal of patients with Meniere's disease. The segmentation performance of IS3DLS was compared with the expert manual segmentation method and the region growth level set-based segmentation algorithm. Results showed that Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), false positive rate (FPR), and false negative rate (FNR) of this algorithm were 0.9599, 0.9594, 0.0325, and 0.03655, respectively. Therefore, the IS3DLS could achieve good segmentation effect in MRI images of the inner auditory canal of patients with Meniere's disease, which was helpful for diagnosis and subsequent treatment of Meniere's disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34366724 PMCID: PMC8315872 DOI: 10.1155/2021/2329313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Figure 1Flow chart of image registration.
Figure 2Flow chart of inner ear level set segmentation based on the statistical shape model.
Figure 3The images of the inner ear of one child patient with Meniere's disease.
Figure 4Modeling results of the statistical shape model of the inner ear.
Figure 5Drawing result of the inner ear ROI.
Figure 6Result of the segmentation algorithm in this study.
Performance test results of IS3DLS.
| Group | MCC | DSC | FPR | FNR |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.9532 | 0.9483 | 0.0353 | 0.0778 | 0.1573 | 1.1144 |
|
| 0.9758 | 0.9629 | 0.0517 | 0.0821 | 0.1424 | 0.9151 |
|
| 0.9442 | 0.9535 | 0.0125 | 0.0567 | 0.1842 | 0.7846 |
|
| 0.9431 | 0.9723 | 0.0215 | 0.0551 | 0.1165 | 0.8782 |
|
| 0.977 | 0.9682 | 0.0419 | 0.0614 | 0.1792 | 1.1286 |
|
| 0.9661 | 0.9512 | 0.0321 | 0.0977 | 0.1426 | 1.2379 |
| Average | 0.9599 | 0.9594 | 0.0325 | 0.0718 | 0.1537 | 1.0098 |
Comparison of results of segmentation algorithms influenced by MRI.
| Algorithm | TP | FP | AMED | HD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IS3DLS | 97.81 | 1.52 | 0.78 | 2.15 |
| Region growth set segmentation | 96.36 | 2.78 | 0.83 | 2.98 |
|
| >0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 | <0.05 |
Note: the symbol means that the difference was statistically substantial in contrast to the region growth set segmentation algorithm (P < 0.05).
Quantitative analysis results of evaluation indicators in different algorithms.
| Algorithm | MCC | DSC | FPR | FNR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IS3DLS | 0.9599 | 0.9594 | 0.0325 | 0.0365 |
| Region growth set segmentation | 0.8693 | 0.8721 | 0.1402 | 0.0718 |
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Note: the symbol shows there was a statistically obvious difference in contrast to the region growing set segmentation algorithm (P < 0.05).
Comparison on running time of different algorithms.
| Algorithm | Running time (s) |
|---|---|
| IS3DLS | 23.53 |
| Region growth set segmentation | 37.15 |
|
| <0.05 |
Note: the symbol reveals that the difference was statistically marked in contrast to the region growth set segmentation algorithm (P < 0.05).