| Literature DB >> 35228779 |
Xi Zhou1, Qinghao Ye2, Xiaolin Yang1, Jiakun Chen1, Haiqin Ma1, Jun Xia1, Javier Del Ser3,4, Guang Yang5,6.
Abstract
Based on CT and MRI images acquired from normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) patients, using machine learning methods, we aim to establish a multimodal and high-performance automatic ventricle segmentation method to achieve an efficient and accurate automatic measurement of the ventricular volume. First, we extract the brain CT and MRI images of 143 definite NPH patients. Second, we manually label the ventricular volume (VV) and intracranial volume (ICV). Then, we use the machine learning method to extract features and establish automatic ventricle segmentation model. Finally, we verify the reliability of the model and achieved automatic measurement of VV and ICV. In CT images, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis of the automatic and manual segmentation result of the VV were 0.95, 0.99, 0.99, and 4.2 ± 2.6, respectively. The results of ICV were 0.96, 0.99, 0.99, and 6.0 ± 3.8, respectively. The whole process takes 3.4 ± 0.3 s. In MRI images, the DSC, ICC, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis of the automatic and manual segmentation result of the VV were 0.94, 0.99, 0.99, and 2.0 ± 0.6, respectively. The results of ICV were 0.93, 0.99, 0.99, and 7.9 ± 3.8, respectively. The whole process took 1.9 ± 0.1 s. We have established a multimodal and high-performance automatic ventricle segmentation method to achieve efficient and accurate automatic measurement of the ventricular volume of NPH patients. This can help clinicians quickly and accurately understand the situation of NPH patient's ventricles.Entities:
Keywords: AI-based diagnosis; Computed tomography; Intracranial volume; Machine learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Medical AI; Normal pressure hydrocephalus; Ventricular volume
Year: 2022 PMID: 35228779 PMCID: PMC8866920 DOI: 10.1007/s00521-022-07048-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Comput Appl ISSN: 0941-0643 Impact factor: 5.606
Characteristic data of the definite NPH patients
| Characteristics | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 72.3 ± 6.9 |
| Sex (male/female) | 79/64 |
| MMSE score | 21.8 ± 4.7 |
| TUG (s) | 27.6 ± 18.3 |
| iNPHGS score | 5.8 ± 2.4 |
All results are in the form of mean ± standard deviation
MMSE Mini-Mental State Examination; TUG Timed Up and Go Test; iNPHGS iNPH Grading Scale
Scan parameters of CT and MRI
| Name | Type | Producer | Field strength (T) | Sequence | TR (ms) | TE (ms) | Flip angle (°) | Slice thickness (mm) | Pixel | Examination quantity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | MRI | General Electric | 1.5 | T1 | 1910 | 23.6 | 90 | 6 | 0.4688 × 0.4688 × 8 | 41 |
| C | MRI | Siemens | 1.5 | T1 | 388 | 13 | 90 | 6 | 0.6875 × 0.6875 × 7.8 | 37 |
| D | MRI | Siemens | 3.0 | T1 | 2000 | 7.4 | 150 | 6 | 0.6875 × 0.6875 × 7.8 | 52 |
| E | CT | Siemens | NA* | NA* | NA* | NA* | NA* | 5 | 0.3906 × 0.3906 × 5 | 59 |
| F | CT | Siemens | NA* | NA* | NA* | NA* | NA* | 4.8 | 0.4199 × 0.4199 × 4.825 | 63 |
*The device does not have this parameter
TR Repetition time; TE echo time
Fig. 1Flowchart and network structure of this research
The DSC, ICC, and Pearson correlation of validation set manual and automatic measurement results
| Manual and automatic measurement results | CT | MRI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSC | ICC | Pearson correlation | DSC | ICC | Pearson correlation | |
| Ventricle volume | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| Intracranial volume | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.93 ± 0.03 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
All results are in the form of mean ± standard deviation
ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient; DSC Dice similarity coefficient
Fig. 2Pearson correlation analysis diagram of manual and automatic segmentation results. Whether it is the ventricle volume (VV) and intracranial volume (ICV) of the CT image or MRI image; the Pearson correlation between automatic and manual segmentation results is 0.99, and there is the statistical significance (P < 0.01)
Fig. 3Bland–Altman analysis diagram of manual and automatic segmentation results. In the CT image, the Bland–Altman analysis shows that manual and automatic segmentation bias mean ± standards deviations of VV and ICV are 4.2 ± 2.6 and 6.0 ± 3.8. In the MRI image, the Bland–Altman analysis shows that manual and automatic segmentation bias mean ± standards deviations of VV and ICV are 2.0 ± 0.6 and 7.9 ± 3.8
Validation set measurement results
| CT | MRI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manual segmentation | Auto segmentation | Manual segmentation | Auto segmentation | |
| Ventricular volume (ml) | 136.6 ± 34.6 | 132.4 ± 35.5 | 124.6 ± 27.6 | 122.6 ± 27.5 |
| Intracranial volume (ml) | 1396.1 ± 144.6 | 1390.2 ± 144.4 | 1238.7 ± 112.1 | 1231.6 ± 111.4 |
| Time consuming (s) | >1000 | 3.4 ± 0.3 | >1000 | 1.9 ± 0.1 |
All results are in the form of mean ± standard deviation
Fig. 4The visualization of the 3D brain ventricles and whole-brain segmentation results with two different modalities (CT/MRI) and the corresponding three-dimensional visualization of the predictions. The right lateral ventricle is colored in red; the left lateral ventricle is the green one; the third ventricle is colored with yellow; and the blue region indicates the fourth ventricle
Comparison results (DSC) of our method with other methods for automatically segmenting the ventricle of the validation set
| Methods | CT | MRI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ventricle volume | Intracranial volume | Ventricle volume | Intracranial volume | |
| Ours | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.93 ± 0.03 |
| U-Net | 0.90 ± 0.03 | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 0.89 ± 0.03 | 0.87 ± 0.02 |
| U-Net++ | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 0.90 ± 0.03 |
All results are in the form of mean ± standard deviation
DSC Dice similarity coefficient