By Topic

Inter-Greedy technique for fusion of different carotid segmentation boundaries leading to high-performance IMT measurement

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Molinari, F. ; Dept. of Electron., Politec. di Torino, Torino, Italy ; Zeng, G. ; Suri, J.S.

User-based estimation of intima-media thickness (IMT) of carotid arteries leads to subjectivity in its decision support systems, while being used as a cardiovascular risk marker. During automated computer-based decision support, we had developed segmentation strategies that follow three main courses of our contributions: (a) signal processing approach combined with snakes and fuzzy K-means (CULEXsa), (b) integrated approach based on seed and line detection followed by probability based connectivity and classification (CALEXsa), and (c) morphological approach with watershed transform and fitting (WS). We have extended this fusion concept by taking merits of these multiple boundaries, so called, Inter-Greedy (IG) approach. Starting from the technique with the overall least system error (the snake-based one), we iteratively swapped the vertices of the lumen-intima/media-adventitia (LI/MA) profiles until we minimized its overall distance with respect to ground truth. The fusion boundary was the IG boundary. The mean error of Inter-Greedy technique (evaluated on 200 images) yielded 0.32 ± 0.44 pixel (20.0 ± 27.5 μm) for the LI boundary (a 33.3% ± 5.6% improvement over initial best performing technique) and 0.21 ± 0.34 pixel (13.1 ± 21.3 μm) for MA boundary (a 32.3% ± 6.7% improvement). IMT measurement error for Greedy method was 0.74 ± 0.75 pixel (46.3 ± 46.9 μm), a 43.5% ± 2.4% improvement.

Published in:

Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE

Date of Conference:

Aug. 31 2010-Sept. 4 2010