Key result
Semi-automated segmentation yielded higher inter-observer reliability (ICC 0.987) than manual segmentation (ICC 0.922) for total carotid vessel wall volume measurements on three-dimensional ultrasonography.
Why the study?
Semi-automated algorithms for carotid vessel wall volume on 3DUS lack clinical validation, particularly regarding extensive reliability analysis.
Does semi-automated segmentation improve inter-observer and intra-observer reliability compared to manual segmentation for carotid vessel wall volume measurements on 3DUS?
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Observers blinded to subject information and identification
No
Does semi-automated segmentation improve inter-observer and intra-observer reliability compared to manual segmentation for carotid vessel wall volume measurements on 3DUS?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.987% vs 0.922%
Semi-automated segmentation for carotid vessel wall volume on 3D ultrasonography is highly reliable and outperforms manual segmentation, supporting its potential for clinical application.
Semi-automated segmentation shows acceptable reliability for carotid VWV; leaves open larger prospective validation before clinical adoption.
PURPOSE: Carotid vessel wall volume (VWV) measurement on three-dimensional ultrasonography (3DUS) outperforms conventional two-dimensional ultrasonography for carotid atherosclerosis evaluation. Although time-saving semi-automated algorithms have been introduced, their clinical availability remains limited due to a lack of validation, particularly an extensive reliability analysis. This study compared inter-observer and intra-observer reliability between manual segmentation and semi-automated segmentation for carotid VWV measurements on 3DUS. METHODS: Thirty-one 3DUS volume datasets were prospectively acquired from 20 healthy subjects, aged >18 years, without previous stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular disease. Five observers segmented all volume datasets both manually and semi-automatically. The process was repeated five times. Reliability was expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient, supplemented by the coefficient of variation. RESULTS: Carotid VWV measurements using the common carotid artery (CCA) were more reliable than those using the internal carotid artery (ICA) or external carotid artery (ECA) for both manual and semiautomated segmentation (manual segmentation, CCA: inter-observer, 0.935; intra-observer, 0.934 to 0.966; ICA: inter-observer, 0.784; intra-observer, 0.756 to 0.878; ECA: inter-observer, 0.732; intraobserver, 0.919 to 0.962; semi-automated segmentation, CCA: inter-observer, 0.986; intra-observer, 0.954 to 0.993; ICA: inter-observer, 0.977; intra-observer, 0.958 to 0.978; ECA: inter-observer, 0.966; intra-observer, 0.884 to 0.937). Total carotid VWV measurements by manual (inter-observer, 0.922; intra-observer, 0.927 to 0.961) and semi-automated segmentation (inter-observer, 0.987; intra-observer, 0.968 to 0.989) were highly reliable. Semi-automated segmentation showed higher reliability than manual segmentation for both individual and total carotid VWV measurements. CONCLUSION: 3DUS carotid VWV measurements of the CCA are more reliable than measurements of the ICA and ECA. Total carotid VWV measurements are highly reliable. Semi-automated segmentation has higher reliability than manual segmentation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chan et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy subjects (n=20). Semi-automated segmentation vs. Manual segmentation was evaluated on Inter-observer reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) for total carotid vessel wall volume measurements. Semi-automated segmentation yielded higher inter-observer reliability (ICC 0.987) than manual segmentation (ICC 0.922) for total carotid vessel wall volume measurements on three-dimensional ultrasonography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: