Automated coronary calcium volume measurement using the Hidden Markov Random Field method on IVUS correlates moderately well with manual expert measurements of coronary vessel, lumen, and atheroma volumes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Moderate correlations support automated HMRF volumetry validation; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective studies.
INTRODUCTION: A high degree of correlation exists between Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD) and calcification of the vessel wall. For Percutaneous Coronary Interventional (PCI) planning, it is essential to have an exact understanding of the extent to which calcium volume is correlated to the lumen, vessel, and atheroma volume regions in the coronary artery, which is unclear in recent studies. AIM: Four automated Coronary Calcium Volume (aCCV) measurement methods {threshold, Fuzzy c-Means (FCM), K-means, and Hidden Markov Random Field (HMRF)} and its correlation with three manual (experts) coronary parameters namely: Coronary Vessel Volume (mCVV), Coronary Lumen Volume (mCLV), and Coronary Atheroma Volume (mCAV), was determined in a Japanese diabetic cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . Statistical tests (Two-tailed paired Student t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, Mann-Whitney test, Chi-square test, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov KS-test) were performed to demonstrate consistency, reliability, and accuracy of the proposed work. RESULTS: Correlation coefficient of: (a) automated threshold-based volume; (b) automated FCM based volume; (c) automated K-means based volume; and (d) automated HMRF based volume and corresponding three manually (expert's) coronary parameters (mCLV, mCVV, mCAV) were: (0.51, 0.40, 0.48), (0.52, 0.38, 0.49), (0.56, 0.45, 0.52), and (0.57, 0.42, 0.56), respectively. The CC between age and haemoglobin was 0.50. CONCLUSION: Automated coronary volume measurement using HMRF method is more accurate compared to threshold, FCM, and K-means-based method, since it is more strongly correlated with three expert's readings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sumit K. Banchhor (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: