Left ventricle: automated segmentation by using myocardial effusion threshold reduction and intravoxel computation at MR imaging.

TitleLeft ventricle: automated segmentation by using myocardial effusion threshold reduction and intravoxel computation at MR imaging.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2008
AuthorsCodella NCF, Weinsaft JW, Cham MD, Janik M, Prince MR, Wang Y
JournalRadiology
Volume248
Issue3
Pagination1004-12
Date Published2008 Sep
ISSN1527-1315
KeywordsAlgorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Female, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
Abstract

UNLABELLED: This retrospective analysis of existing patient data had institutional review board approval and was performed in compliance with HIPAA. No informed consent was required. The purpose of the study was to develop and validate an algorithm for automated segmentation of the left ventricular (LV) cavity that accounts for papillary and/or trabecular muscles and partial voxels in cine magnetic resonance (MR) images, an algorithm called LV Myocardial Effusion Threshold Reduction with Intravoxel Computation (LV-METRIC). The algorithm was validated in biologic phantoms, and its results were compared with those of manual tracing, as well as those of a commercial automated segmentation software (MASS [MR Analytical Software System]), in 38 subjects. LV-METRIC accuracy in vitro was 98.7%. Among the 38 subjects studied, LV-METRIC and MASS ejection fraction estimations were highly correlated with manual tracing (R(2) = 0.97 and R(2) = 0.95, respectively). Ventricular volume estimations were smaller with LV-METRIC and larger with MASS than those calculated by using manual tracing, though all results were well correlated (R(2) = 0.99). LV-METRIC volume measurements without partial voxel interpolation were statistically equivalent to manual tracing results (P > .05). LV-METRIC had reduced intraobserver and interobserver variability compared with other methods. MASS required additional manual intervention in 58% of cases, whereas LV-METRIC required no additional corrections. LV-METRIC reliably and reproducibly measured LV volumes.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/248/3/1004/DC1.

DOI10.1148/radiol.2482072016
Alternate JournalRadiology
PubMed ID18710989
Related Institute: 
MRI Research Institute (MRIRI)

Weill Cornell Medicine
Department of Radiology
525 East 68th Street New York, NY 10065