Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging
Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined v...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Abdominal radiology - [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016, 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:40 ; year:2014 ; number:5 ; day:18 ; month:10 ; pages:1203-1212 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR003194612 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR003194612 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519175131.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201001s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR003194612 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Fananapazir, Ghaneh |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 | ||
| 520 | |a Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a MDCT |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Post-processing |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Liver |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Volumetry |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bashir, Mustafa R. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Marin, Daniele |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boll, Daniel T. |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Abdominal radiology |d [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 |g 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 |w (DE-627)847023133 |w (DE-600)2845742-0 |x 2366-0058 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:40 |g year:2014 |g number:5 |g day:18 |g month:10 |g pages:1203-1212 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_150 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 40 |j 2014 |e 5 |b 18 |c 10 |h 1203-1212 | ||
| author_variant |
g f gf m r b mr mrb d m dm d t b dt dtb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:23660058:2014----::optrielvrouerpromnefflyuoaepooyeotrcsigouinowoeraad |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 doi (DE-627)SPR003194612 (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fananapazir, Ghaneh verfasserin aut Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. MDCT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Post-processing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Liver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Volumetry (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bashir, Mustafa R. aut Marin, Daniele aut Boll, Daniel T. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_2113 AR 40 2014 5 18 10 1203-1212 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 doi (DE-627)SPR003194612 (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fananapazir, Ghaneh verfasserin aut Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. MDCT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Post-processing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Liver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Volumetry (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bashir, Mustafa R. aut Marin, Daniele aut Boll, Daniel T. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_2113 AR 40 2014 5 18 10 1203-1212 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 doi (DE-627)SPR003194612 (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fananapazir, Ghaneh verfasserin aut Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. MDCT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Post-processing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Liver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Volumetry (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bashir, Mustafa R. aut Marin, Daniele aut Boll, Daniel T. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_2113 AR 40 2014 5 18 10 1203-1212 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 doi (DE-627)SPR003194612 (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fananapazir, Ghaneh verfasserin aut Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. MDCT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Post-processing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Liver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Volumetry (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bashir, Mustafa R. aut Marin, Daniele aut Boll, Daniel T. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_2113 AR 40 2014 5 18 10 1203-1212 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 doi (DE-627)SPR003194612 (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fananapazir, Ghaneh verfasserin aut Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. MDCT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Post-processing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Liver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Volumetry (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bashir, Mustafa R. aut Marin, Daniele aut Boll, Daniel T. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_2113 AR 40 2014 5 18 10 1203-1212 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Abdominal radiology 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Abdominal radiology 40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212 volume:40 year:2014 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:1203-1212 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
MDCT Post-processing Liver Volumetry |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Abdominal radiology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh @@aut@@ Bashir, Mustafa R. @@aut@@ Marin, Daniele @@aut@@ Boll, Daniel T. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-10-18T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
847023133 |
| id |
SPR003194612 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR003194612</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519175131.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR003194612</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fananapazir, Ghaneh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">MDCT</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Post-processing</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Liver</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Volumetry</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bashir, Mustafa R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marin, Daniele</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boll, Daniel T.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Abdominal radiology</subfield><subfield code="d">[Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)847023133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2845742-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2366-0058</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:40</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1203-1212</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">40</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield><subfield code="h">1203-1212</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh |
| spellingShingle |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh misc MDCT misc Post-processing misc Liver misc Volumetry Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |
| authorStr |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)847023133 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2366-0058 |
| topic_title |
Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging MDCT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Post-processing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Liver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Volumetry (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc MDCT misc Post-processing misc Liver misc Volumetry |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc MDCT misc Post-processing misc Liver misc Volumetry |
| topic_browse |
misc MDCT misc Post-processing misc Liver misc Volumetry |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Abdominal radiology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
847023133 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Abdominal radiology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 |
| title |
Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR003194612 (SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e |
| title_full |
Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |
| author_sort |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh |
| journal |
Abdominal radiology |
| journalStr |
Abdominal radiology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1203 |
| author_browse |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh Bashir, Mustafa R. Marin, Daniele Boll, Daniel T. |
| container_volume |
40 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Fananapazir, Ghaneh |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |
| title_sort |
computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on mdct imaging |
| title_auth |
Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |
| abstract |
Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 |
| abstractGer |
Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_2113 |
| container_issue |
5 |
| title_short |
Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Bashir, Mustafa R. Marin, Daniele Boll, Daniel T. |
| author2Str |
Bashir, Mustafa R. Marin, Daniele Boll, Daniel T. |
| ppnlink |
847023133 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T17:54:16.386Z |
| _version_ |
1803581397554692096 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR003194612</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519175131.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR003194612</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00261-014-0276-9-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fananapazir, Ghaneh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. Materials and methods A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes’ principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. Results Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, pANOVA 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, pANOVA 0.95–0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, pANOVA 0.96–1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I–IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. Conclusion Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">MDCT</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Post-processing</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Liver</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Volumetry</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bashir, Mustafa R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marin, Daniele</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boll, Daniel T.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Abdominal radiology</subfield><subfield code="d">[Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">40(2014), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 1203-1212</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)847023133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2845742-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2366-0058</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:40</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1203-1212</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">40</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield><subfield code="h">1203-1212</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.39989 |