Quantitative assessment of the impact of biomedical image acquisition on the results obtained from image analysis and processing

INTRODUCTION: Dedicated, automatic algorithms for image analysis and processing are becoming more and more common in medical diagnosis. When creating dedicated algorithms, many factors must be taken into consideration. They are associated with selecting the appropriate algorithm parameters and taking into account the impact of data acquisition on the results obtained. An important feature of algorithms is the possibility of their use in other medical units by other operators. This problem, namely operator’s (acquisition) impact on the results obtained from image analysis and processing, has been shown on a few examples. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The analysed images were obtained from a variety of medical devices such as thermal imaging, tomography devices and those working in visible light. The objects of imaging were cellular elements, the anterior segment and fundus of the eye, postural defects and others. In total, almost 200'000 images coming from 8 different medical units were analysed. All image analysis algorithms were implemented in C and Matlab. RESULTS: For various algorithms and methods of medical imaging, the impact of image acquisition on the results obtained is different. There are different levels of algorithm sensitivity to changes in the parameters, for example: (1) for microscope settings and the brightness assessment of cellular elements there is a difference of 8%; (2) for the thyroid ultrasound images there is a difference in marking the thyroid lobe area which results in a brightness assessment difference of 2%. The method of image acquisition in image analysis and processing also affects: (3) the accuracy of determining the temperature in the characteristic areas on the patient’s back for the thermal method - error of 31%; (4) the accuracy of finding characteristic points in photogrammetric images when evaluating postural defects – error of 11%; (5) the accuracy of performing ablative and non-ablative treatments in cosmetology - error of 18% for the nose, 10% for the cheeks, and 7% for the forehead. Similarly, when: (7) measuring the anterior eye chamber – there is an error of 20%; (8) measuring the tooth enamel thickness - error of 15%; (9) evaluating the mechanical properties of the cornea during pressure measurement - error of 47%. CONCLUSIONS: The paper presents vital, selected issues occurring when assessing the accuracy of designed automatic algorithms for image analysis and processing in bioengineering. The impact of acquisition of images on the problems arising in their analysis has been shown on selected examples. It has also been indicated to which elements of image analysis and processing special attention should be paid in their design.