Cargando…
Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan
BACKGROUND: The present study contrasts the accuracy of different reconstructed models with distinctive segmentation methods performed by various experts. Seven research groups reconstructed nine 3D models of one human femur based on an acquired CT image using their own computational methods. As a r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5833145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29495963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0461-0 |
_version_ | 1783303435362238464 |
---|---|
author | Soodmand, Ehsan Kluess, Daniel Varady, Patrick A. Cichon, Robert Schwarze, Michael Gehweiler, Dominic Niemeyer, Frank Pahr, Dieter Woiczinski, Matthias |
author_facet | Soodmand, Ehsan Kluess, Daniel Varady, Patrick A. Cichon, Robert Schwarze, Michael Gehweiler, Dominic Niemeyer, Frank Pahr, Dieter Woiczinski, Matthias |
author_sort | Soodmand, Ehsan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The present study contrasts the accuracy of different reconstructed models with distinctive segmentation methods performed by various experts. Seven research groups reconstructed nine 3D models of one human femur based on an acquired CT image using their own computational methods. As a reference model for accuracy assessment, a 3D surface scan of the human femur was created using an optical measuring system. Prior to comparison, the femur was divided into four areas; “neck and greater trochanter”, “proximal metaphysis”, “diaphysis”, and “distal metaphysis”. The deviation analysis was carried out in GEOMAGIC studio v.2013 software. RESULTS: The results revealed that the highest deviation errors occurred in “neck and greater trochanter” area and “proximal metaphysis” area with RMSE of 0.84 and 0.83 mm respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study shows that the average deviation of reconstructed models prepared by experts with various methods, skills and software from the surface 3D scan is lower than 0.79 mm, which is not a significant discrepancy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5833145 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58331452018-03-05 Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan Soodmand, Ehsan Kluess, Daniel Varady, Patrick A. Cichon, Robert Schwarze, Michael Gehweiler, Dominic Niemeyer, Frank Pahr, Dieter Woiczinski, Matthias Biomed Eng Online Research BACKGROUND: The present study contrasts the accuracy of different reconstructed models with distinctive segmentation methods performed by various experts. Seven research groups reconstructed nine 3D models of one human femur based on an acquired CT image using their own computational methods. As a reference model for accuracy assessment, a 3D surface scan of the human femur was created using an optical measuring system. Prior to comparison, the femur was divided into four areas; “neck and greater trochanter”, “proximal metaphysis”, “diaphysis”, and “distal metaphysis”. The deviation analysis was carried out in GEOMAGIC studio v.2013 software. RESULTS: The results revealed that the highest deviation errors occurred in “neck and greater trochanter” area and “proximal metaphysis” area with RMSE of 0.84 and 0.83 mm respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study shows that the average deviation of reconstructed models prepared by experts with various methods, skills and software from the surface 3D scan is lower than 0.79 mm, which is not a significant discrepancy. BioMed Central 2018-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5833145/ /pubmed/29495963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0461-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Soodmand, Ehsan Kluess, Daniel Varady, Patrick A. Cichon, Robert Schwarze, Michael Gehweiler, Dominic Niemeyer, Frank Pahr, Dieter Woiczinski, Matthias Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan |
title | Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan |
title_full | Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan |
title_fullStr | Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan |
title_full_unstemmed | Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan |
title_short | Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan |
title_sort | interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from ct data compared to reference optical 3d scan |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5833145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29495963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0461-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT soodmandehsan interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT kluessdaniel interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT varadypatricka interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT cichonrobert interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT schwarzemichael interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT gehweilerdominic interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT niemeyerfrank interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT pahrdieter interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan AT woiczinskimatthias interlaboratorycomparisonoffemursurfacereconstructionfromctdatacomparedtoreferenceoptical3dscan |