Key result
An automatic approach for pericardium segmentation and epicardial fat volume estimation showed high accuracy compared to manual delineation (mean absolute difference 3.8 ml, Pearson correlation 0.99).
Why the study?
Does a fully automatic approach using multi-atlas segmentation and a random forest classifier accurately estimate epicardial fat volume from computed tomography angiography compared to manual delineation?
Does a fully automatic approach using multi-atlas segmentation and a random forest classifier accurately estimate epicardial fat volume from computed tomography angiography compared to manual delineation?
Effect estimate: Pearson correlation: 0.99
A fully automatic approach for pericardium segmentation and epicardial fat volume estimation from CTA is highly accurate and fast, potentially enabling large-scale studies.
Enables efficient EFV quantification for large-scale research; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
Recent findings indicate a strong correlation between the risk of future heart disease and the volume of adipose tissue inside of the pericardium. So far, large-scale studies have been hindered by the fact that manual delineation of the pericardium is extremely time-consuming and that existing methods for automatic delineation lack accuracy. An efficient and fully automatic approach to pericardium segmentation and epicardial fat volume (EFV) estimation is presented, based on a variant of multi-atlas segmentation for spatial initialization and a random forest classifier for accurate pericardium detection. Experimental validation on a set of 30 manually delineated computer tomography angiography volumes shows a significant improvement on state-of-the-art in terms of EFV estimation [mean absolute EFV difference: 3.8 ml (4.7%), Pearson correlation: 0.99] with run times suitable for large-scale studies (52 s). Further, the results compare favorably with interobserver variability measured on 10 volumes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Norlén et al. (2016) studied this question. Automatic pericardium segmentation and epicardial fat volume estimation vs. Manual delineation was evaluated on Epicardial fat volume (EFV) estimation accuracy (Pearson correlation: 0.99). An automatic approach for pericardium segmentation and epicardial fat volume estimation showed high accuracy compared to manual delineation (mean absolute difference 3.8 ml, Pearson correlation 0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: