BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 122-129
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/30866348
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bourantas, C V
Right arrow Articles by Michalis, L K
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bourantas, C V
Right arrow Articles by Michalis, L K

In vivo validation of a novel semi-automated method for border detection in intravascular ultrasound images

C V Bourantas, MD1,3, M E Plissiti, MSc2, D I Fotiadis, PhD2,3, V C Protopappas, MSc2, G V Mpozios, PhD1,3, C S Katsouras, MD1,3, I C Kourtis, BSc2, M R Rees, FRCP, FRCR4 and L K Michalis, MD, MRCP1,3

1 Department of Cardiology, Medical School, 2 Unit of Medical Technology and Intelligent Information Systems, Department of Computer Science, University of Ioannina, 3 Michailideion Cardiology Center, GR 45110 Ioannina, Greece and 4 University Department of Clinical Radiology, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK



View larger version (33K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Two borders with the same area and perimeter value corresponding to geometrically different regions of interest. X indicates ratio of non-overlapping areas.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. In figures (a) and (b) the non-overlapping areas are the same. The similarity in two border estimations is higher in figure (a) where the Hausdorff and the mean distance have the same value than in figure (b) where Hausdorff is larger than mean distance.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. The interobserver variability between the contour detection method and the two observers for the lumen area. SD, standard deviation.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. The interobserver variability between the contour detection method and the two observers for the external elastic membrane area. SD, standard deviation.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. The interobserver variability between the contour detection method and the two observers for the stent area. SD, standard deviation.

 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. Linear regression analysis of the automatic lumen area vs manual tracing.

 


View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 7. Linear regression analysis for the external elastic membrane area between the automatic and manual tracing.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 8. Linear regression analysis of the automatic stent area vs manual tracing.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 9. The interobserver variability between our method and the two observers concerning the non-overlapping areas for the lumen borders. SD, standard deviation.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 10. The interobserver variability between our method and the two observers concerning the non-overlapping areas for the external elastic membrane borders. SD, standard deviation.

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 11. The interobserver variability between our method and the two observers concerning the non-overlapping areas for the stent borders. SD, standard deviation.

 


View larger version (65K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 12. Stent border detection in an intravascular ultrasound frame by (a) an expert observer and by (b) our automated segmentation method.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.