Cargando…

A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients

Cranial cavity extraction is often the first step in quantitative neuroimaging analyses. However, few automated, validated extraction tools have been developed for non-contrast enhanced CT scans (NECT). The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast freely available tools in an unseen dataset...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vass, L., Moore, M. J., Hanayik, T., Mair, G., Pendlebury, S. T., Demeyere, N., Jenkinson, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9547790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34490589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12021-021-09534-7
_version_ 1784805341492412416
author Vass, L.
Moore, M. J.
Hanayik, T.
Mair, G.
Pendlebury, S. T.
Demeyere, N.
Jenkinson, M.
author_facet Vass, L.
Moore, M. J.
Hanayik, T.
Mair, G.
Pendlebury, S. T.
Demeyere, N.
Jenkinson, M.
author_sort Vass, L.
collection PubMed
description Cranial cavity extraction is often the first step in quantitative neuroimaging analyses. However, few automated, validated extraction tools have been developed for non-contrast enhanced CT scans (NECT). The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast freely available tools in an unseen dataset of real-world clinical NECT head scans in order to assess the performance and generalisability of these tools. This study included data from a demographically representative sample of 428 patients who had completed NECT scans following hospitalisation for stroke. In a subset of the scans (n = 20), the intracranial spaces were segmented using automated tools and compared to the gold standard of manual delineation to calculate accuracy, precision, recall, and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values. Further, three readers independently performed regional visual comparisons of the quality of the results in a larger dataset (n = 428). Three tools were found; one of these had unreliable performance so subsequent evaluation was discontinued. The remaining tools included one that was adapted from the FMRIB software library (fBET) and a convolutional neural network- based tool (rBET). Quantitative comparison showed comparable accuracy, precision, recall and DSC values (fBET: 0.984 ± 0.002; rBET: 0.984 ± 0.003; p = 0.99) between the tools; however, intracranial volume was overestimated. Visual comparisons identified characteristic regional differences in the resulting cranial cavity segmentations. Overall fBET had highest visual quality ratings and was preferred by the readers in the majority of subject results (84%). However, both tools produced high quality extractions of the intracranial space and our findings should improve confidence in these automated CT tools. Pre- and post-processing techniques may further improve these results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12021-021-09534-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9547790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95477902022-10-10 A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients Vass, L. Moore, M. J. Hanayik, T. Mair, G. Pendlebury, S. T. Demeyere, N. Jenkinson, M. Neuroinformatics Original Article Cranial cavity extraction is often the first step in quantitative neuroimaging analyses. However, few automated, validated extraction tools have been developed for non-contrast enhanced CT scans (NECT). The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast freely available tools in an unseen dataset of real-world clinical NECT head scans in order to assess the performance and generalisability of these tools. This study included data from a demographically representative sample of 428 patients who had completed NECT scans following hospitalisation for stroke. In a subset of the scans (n = 20), the intracranial spaces were segmented using automated tools and compared to the gold standard of manual delineation to calculate accuracy, precision, recall, and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values. Further, three readers independently performed regional visual comparisons of the quality of the results in a larger dataset (n = 428). Three tools were found; one of these had unreliable performance so subsequent evaluation was discontinued. The remaining tools included one that was adapted from the FMRIB software library (fBET) and a convolutional neural network- based tool (rBET). Quantitative comparison showed comparable accuracy, precision, recall and DSC values (fBET: 0.984 ± 0.002; rBET: 0.984 ± 0.003; p = 0.99) between the tools; however, intracranial volume was overestimated. Visual comparisons identified characteristic regional differences in the resulting cranial cavity segmentations. Overall fBET had highest visual quality ratings and was preferred by the readers in the majority of subject results (84%). However, both tools produced high quality extractions of the intracranial space and our findings should improve confidence in these automated CT tools. Pre- and post-processing techniques may further improve these results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12021-021-09534-7. Springer US 2021-09-06 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9547790/ /pubmed/34490589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12021-021-09534-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Vass, L.
Moore, M. J.
Hanayik, T.
Mair, G.
Pendlebury, S. T.
Demeyere, N.
Jenkinson, M.
A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
title A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
title_full A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
title_fullStr A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
title_short A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
title_sort comparison of cranial cavity extraction tools for non-contrast enhanced ct scans in acute stroke patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9547790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34490589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12021-021-09534-7
work_keys_str_mv AT vassl acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT mooremj acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT hanayikt acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT mairg acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT pendleburyst acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT demeyeren acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT jenkinsonm acomparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT vassl comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT mooremj comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT hanayikt comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT mairg comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT pendleburyst comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT demeyeren comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients
AT jenkinsonm comparisonofcranialcavityextractiontoolsfornoncontrastenhancedctscansinacutestrokepatients