Effect of surface-partial-volume correction and adaptive threshold on segmentation of uroliths in computed tomography.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
10
10
2022
accepted:
06
05
2023
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
23
6
2023
entrez:
23
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Computed tomography (CT) is used to diagnose urolithiasis, a prevalent condition. In order to establish the strongest foundation for the quantifiability of urolithiasis, this study aims to develop semi-automated urolithiasis segmentation methods for CT images that differ in terms of surface-partial-volume correction and adaptive thresholding. It also examines the diagnostic accuracy of these methods in terms of volume and maximum stone diameter. One hundred and one uroliths were positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom and prospectively examined in CT. Four different segmentation methods were developed and used to segment the uroliths semi-automatically based on CT images. Volume and maximum diameter were calculated from the segmentations. Volume and maximum diameter of the uroliths were measured independently by three urologists by means of electronic calipers. The average value of the urologists´ measurements was used as a reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed with multivariate Bartlett's test. Volume and maximum diameter were in very good agreement with the reference measurements (r>0.99) and the diagnostic accuracy of all segmentation methods used was very high. Regarding the diagnostic accuracy no difference could be detected between the different segmentation methods tested (p>0.55). All four segmentation methods allow for accurate characterization of urolithiasis in CT with respect to volume and maximum diameter of uroliths. Thus, a simple thresholding approach with an absolute value may suffice for robust determination of volume and maximum diameter in urolithiasis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37352326
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286016
pii: PONE-D-22-27963
pmc: PMC10289361
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0286016Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Neubauer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jul;209(1):116-121
pubmed: 28402129
Eur Radiol. 2004 Jan;14(1):129-36
pubmed: 12819916
Radiology. 1997 Jul;204(1):19-25
pubmed: 9205217
Rev Urol. 2010 Spring;12(2-3):e86-96
pubmed: 20811557
J Endourol. 2018 Jun;32(6):572-576
pubmed: 29641351
Urology. 2010 Aug;76(2):295-300
pubmed: 20206970
Radiographics. 2010 May;30(3):603-23
pubmed: 20462984
Invest Radiol. 2018 Aug;53(8):457-462
pubmed: 29596080
J Endourol. 2016 Jun;30(6):644-9
pubmed: 27021947
J Endourol. 2018 Jul;32(7):659-664
pubmed: 29860872
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2008 Jun;59(3):131-4
pubmed: 18697719
Int J Urol. 2007 Jul;14(7):665-7
pubmed: 17645618
World J Urol. 2018 Jan;36(1):117-123
pubmed: 28948344
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Feb 25;2:16008
pubmed: 27188687
BJU Int. 2009 Feb;103(4):524-8
pubmed: 19007365
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Jan;44(1):227-233
pubmed: 30073402
Eur Radiol. 2005 Nov;15(11):2238-43
pubmed: 15806362
J Urol. 2014 Aug;192(2):316-24
pubmed: 24857648
Urology. 2012 Jul;80(1):27-31
pubmed: 22578829