Dataset Information

Automated major psoas muscle volumetry in computed tomography using machine learning algorithms.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The psoas major muscle (PMM) volume serves as an opportunistic imaging marker in cross-sectional imaging datasets for various clinical applications. Since manual segmentation is time consuming, two different automated segmentation methods, a generative adversarial network architecture (GAN) and a multi-atlas segmentation (MAS), as well as a combined approach of both, were investigated in terms of accuracy of automated volumetrics in given CT datasets.

Materials and methods

The bilateral PMM was manually segmented by a radiologist in 34 abdominal CT scans, resulting in 68 single 3D muscle segmentations as training data. Three different methods were tested for their ability to generate automated image segmentations: a GAN- and MAS-based approach and a combined approach of both methods (COM). Bilateral PMM volume (PMMV) was calculated in cm³ by each algorithm for every CT. Results were compared to the corresponding ground truth using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Spearman's correlation coefficient and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

Mean PMMV was 239 ± 7.0 cm³ and 308 ± 9.6 cm³, 306 ± 9.5 cm³ and 243 ± 7.3 cm³ for the CNN, MAS and COM, respectively. Compared to the ground truth the CNN and MAS overestimated the PMMV significantly (+ 28.9% and + 28.0%, p < 0.001), while results of the COM were quite accurate (+ 0.7%, p = 0.33). Spearman's correlation coefficients were 0.38, 0.62 and 0.73, and the DSCs were 0.75 [95%CI: 0.56-0.88], 0.73 [95%CI: 0.54-0.85] and 0.82 [95%CI: 0.65-0.90] for the CNN, MAS and COM, respectively.

Conclusion

The combined approach was able to efficiently exploit the advantages of both methods (GAN and MAS), resulting in a significantly higher accuracy in PMMV predictions compared to the isolated implementations of both methods. Even with the relatively small set of training data, the segmentation accuracy of this hybrid approach was relatively close to that of the radiologist.

SUBMITTER: Duong F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8784497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of pulmonary lobar volumetry using the conventional number of segments method and novel volumetric computer-aided diagnosis using 3D computed tomography images. METHODS: We acquired 50 consecutive preoperative 3D computed tomography examinations for lung tumours reconstructed at 1-mm slice thicknesses. We calculated the lobar volume and the emphysematous lobar volume < -950 HU of each lobe using (i) the slice-by-slice method (reference standard), (ii) number of segments method, and (iii) semi-automatic and (iv) automatic computer-aided diagnosis. We determined Pearson correlation coefficients between the reference standard and the three other methods for lobar volumes and emphysematous lobar volumes. We also compared the relative errors among the three measurement methods. RESULTS: Both semi-automatic and automatic computer-aided diagnosis results were more strongly correlated with the reference standard than the number of segments method. The correlation coefficients for automatic computer-aided diagnosis were slightly lower than those for semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis because there was one outlier among 50 cases (2%) in the right upper lobe and two outliers among 50 cases (4%) in the other lobes. The number of segments method relative error was significantly greater than those for semi-automatic and automatic computer-aided diagnosis (P < 0.001). The computational time for automatic computer-aided diagnosis was 1/2 to 2/3 than that of semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A novel lobar volumetry computer-aided diagnosis system could more precisely measure lobar volumes than the conventional number of segments method. Because semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis and automatic computer-aided diagnosis were complementary, in clinical use, it would be more practical to first measure volumes by automatic computer-aided diagnosis, and then use semi-automatic measurements if automatic computer-aided diagnosis failed.