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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soodmand, Ehsan, Kluess, Daniel, Varady, Patrick A., Cichon, Robert, Schwarze, Michael, Gehweiler, Dominic, Niemeyer, Frank, Pahr, Dieter, Woiczinski, Matthias
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