4.4 Article

Effects of CT image segmentation methods on the accuracy of long bone 3D reconstructions

期刊

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 226-233

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.10.002

关键词

Computed tomography; Image segmentation; Canny edge detection; Thresholding; Bone models; MicroCT; Femur; Mechanical digitiser

资金

  1. Synthes Asia-Pacific

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An accurate and accessible image segmentation method is in high demand for generating 3D bone models from CT scan data, as such models are required in many areas of medical research. Even though numerous sophisticated segmentation methods have been published over the years, most of them are not readily available to the general research community. Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the accuracy of three popular image segmentation methods, two implementations of intensity thresholding and Canny edge detection, for generating 3D models of long bones. In order to reduce user dependent errors associated with visually selecting a threshold value, we present a new approach of selecting an appropriate threshold value based on the Canny filter. A mechanical contact scanner in conjunction with a microCT scanner was utilised to generate the reference models for validating the 3D bone models generated from CT data of five intact ovine hind limbs. When the overall accuracy of the bone model is considered, the three investigated segmentation methods generated comparable results with mean errors in the range of 0.18-0.24 mm. However, for the bone diaphysis, Canny edge detection and Canny filter based thresholding generated 3D models with a significantly higher accuracy compared to those generated through visually selected thresholds. This study demonstrates that 3D models with sub-voxel accuracy can be generated utilising relatively simple segmentation methods that are available to the general research community. (C) 2010 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据