Comparison of manual and automatic segmentation methods for brain structures in the presence of space-occupying lesions: a multi-expert study.
Comparison of manual and automatic segmentation methods for brain structures in the presence of space-occupying lesions: a multi-expert study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1088/0031-9155/56/14/021
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-21
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Dawant BM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Deeley MA;Chen A;Datteri R;Noble JH;Cmelak AJ;Donnelly EF;Malcolm AW;Moretti L;Jaboin J;Niermann K;Yang ES;Yu DS;Yei F;Koyama T;Ding GX;Dawant BM
这项工作的目的是表征放射治疗相关的颅内结构分割的专家变化，并在此背景下评估配准驱动的基于图谱的分割算法。招募8名专家对20名接受大型占位性肿瘤治疗的患者进行脑干、视交叉、视神经和眼睛的分割。通过三个几何测量：体积，骰子相似系数和欧几里得距离的性能变异性进行了评估。此外，两个模拟地面真值分割计算通过同时的真理和性能水平估计（STAPLE）算法和概率图的一种新的应用。专家和自动系统被发现产生类似的体积的结构，虽然专家表现出较高的变化相对于管状结构。在所有病例和器官的5%显著性水平下，未发现自动和专家描绘的平均Dice系数（DSC）之间存在差异。脑干和眼睛的较大结构表现出约0.8-0.9的平均DSC，而管状交叉和神经较低，约0.4-0.5。类似的低DSC先前已在没有几位专家和患者数量的情况下报告。然而，这项研究提供的证据表明，专家们也受到了类似的挑战。与模拟地面实况的平均最大距离（最大内部，最大外部）范围从自动系统的（-4.3，+5.4）mm到专家组的（-3.9，+7.5）mm。在所有结构中，在距离模拟真实情况2 mm阈值处的真阳性率等级中，自动系统在9个评级者中排名第二。这项工作强调了需要大规模的研究，利用统计上强大的患者和专家的数量来评估自动算法的质量。
The purpose of this work was to characterize expert variation in segmentation of intracranial structures pertinent to radiation therapy, and to assess a registration-driven atlas-based segmentation algorithm in that context. Eight experts were recruited to segment the brainstem, optic chiasm, optic nerves, and eyes, of 20 patients who underwent therapy for large space-occupying tumors. Performance variability was assessed through three geometric measures: volume, Dice similarity coefficient, and Euclidean distance. In addition, two simulated ground truth segmentations were calculated via the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm and a novel application of probability maps. The experts and automatic system were found to generate structures of similar volume, though the experts exhibited higher variation with respect to tubular structures. No difference was found between the mean Dice coefficient (DSC) of the automatic and expert delineations as a group at a 5% significance level over all cases and organs. The larger structures of the brainstem and eyes exhibited mean DSC of approximately 0.8–0.9, whereas the tubular chiasm and nerves were lower, approximately 0.4–0.5. Similarly low DSC have been reported previously without the context of several experts and patient volumes. This study, however, provides evidence that experts are similarly challenged. The average maximum distances (maximum inside, maximum outside) from a simulated ground truth ranged from (−4.3, +5.4) mm for the automatic system to (−3.9, +7.5) mm for the experts considered as a group. Over all the structures in a rank of true positive rates at a 2 mm threshold from the simulated ground truth, the automatic system ranked second of the nine raters. This work underscores the need for large scale studies utilizing statistically robust numbers of patients and experts in evaluating quality of automatic algorithms.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Babalola, Kolawole Oluwole;Patenaude, Brian;Rueckert, Daniel
通讯作者：
Rueckert, Daniel
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Malsch, U.;Thieke, C.;Bendl, R.
通讯作者：
Bendl, R.
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.055
发表时间：
2005-01-01
影响因子：
7
作者：
Bondiau, PY;Malandain, G;Ayache, N
通讯作者：
Ayache, N
影响因子：
10.6
作者：
Rohde, GK;Aldroubi, A;Dawant, BM
通讯作者：
Dawant, BM
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Mell, LK;Mehrotra, AK;Mundt, AJ
通讯作者：
Mundt, AJ