Translator Disclaimer
23 February 2012 Comparison of analysis methods for airway quantification
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
Diseased airways have been known for several years as a possible contributing factor to airflow limitation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases (COPD). Quantification of disease severity through the evaluation of airway dimensions - wall thickness and lumen diameter - has gained increased attention, thanks to the availability of multi-slice computed tomography (CT). Novel approaches have focused on automated methods of measurement as a faster and more objective means that the visual assessment routinely employed in the clinic. Since the Full-Width Half-Maximum (FWHM) method of airway measurement was introduced two decades ago [1], several new techniques for quantifying airways have been detailed in the literature, but no approach has truly become a standard for such analysis. Our own research group has presented two alternative approaches for determining airway dimensions, one involving a minimum path and the other active contours [2, 3]. With an increasing number of techniques dedicated to the same goal, we decided to take a step back and analyze the differences of these methods. We consequently put to the test our two methods of analysis and the FWHM approach. We first measured a set of 5 airways from a phantom of known dimensions. Then we compared measurements from the three methods to those of two independent readers, performed on 35 airways in 5 patients. We elaborate on the differences of each approach and suggest conclusions on which could be defined as the best one.
© (2012) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Benjamin L. Odry, Atilla P. Kiraly, Carol L. Novak, and David P. Naidich "Comparison of analysis methods for airway quantification", Proc. SPIE 8315, Medical Imaging 2012: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 83152R (23 February 2012); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.912420
PROCEEDINGS
12 PAGES


SHARE
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top