It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Segmentation of medical images into different tissue types is essential for many advancements in orthopaedic research; however, manual segmentation techniques can be time- and cost-prohibitive. The purpose of this work was to develop a semi-automatic segmentation algorithm that leverages gradients in spatial intensity to isolate the patella bone from magnetic resonance (MR) images of the knee that does not require a training set. The developed algorithm was validated in a sample of four human participants (in vivo) and three porcine stifle joints (ex vivo) using both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). We assessed the repeatability (expressed as mean ± standard deviation) of the semi-automatic segmentation technique on: (1) the same MRI scan twice (Dice similarity coefficient = 0.988 ± 0.002; surface distance = − 0.01 ± 0.001 mm), (2) the scan/re-scan repeatability of the segmentation technique (surface distance = − 0.02 ± 0.03 mm), (3) how the semi-automatic segmentation technique compared to manual MRI segmentation (surface distance = − 0.02 ± 0.08 mm), and (4) how the semi-automatic segmentation technique compared when applied to both MRI and CT images of the same specimens (surface distance = − 0.02 ± 0.06 mm). Mean surface distances perpendicular to the cartilage surface were computed between pairs of patellar bone models. Critically, the semi-automatic segmentation algorithm developed in this work reduced segmentation time by approximately 75%. This method is promising for improving research throughput and potentially for use in generating training data for deep learning algorithms.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961); Duke University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Pratt School of Engineering, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961)
2 Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961)
3 Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961)
4 Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961); Duke University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Pratt School of Engineering, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961); Duke University, Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science, Pratt School of Engineering, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.26009.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7961)