Automated segmentation of the healed anterior cruciate ligament from T2 relaxometry MRI scans
Collagen organization of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) can be evaluated using T2* relaxometry. However, T2* mapping requires manual image segmentation, which is a time‐consuming process and prone to inter‐ and intra‐ segmenter variability. Automating segmentation would address these challenge...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of orthopaedic research 2023-03, Vol.41 (3), p.649-656 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Collagen organization of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) can be evaluated using T2* relaxometry. However, T2* mapping requires manual image segmentation, which is a time‐consuming process and prone to inter‐ and intra‐ segmenter variability. Automating segmentation would address these challenges. A model previously trained using Constructive Interference in Steady State (CISS) scans was applied to T2* segmentation via transfer learning. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in the model's segmentation performance between T2* and CISS, structural measures versus ground truth manual segmentation, and reliability versus independent and retest manual segmentation. Transfer learning was conducted using 54 T2* scans of the ACL. Segmentation performance was assessed with Dice coefficient, precision, and sensitivity, and structurally with T2* value, volume, subvolume proportions, and cross‐sectional area. Model performance relative to independent manual segmentation and repeated segmentation by the ground truth segmenter (retest) were evaluated on a random subset. Segmentation performance was analyzed with Mann–Whitney U tests, structural measures with Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests, and performance relative to manual segmentation with repeated‐measures analysis of variance/Tukey tests (α = 0.05). T2* segmentation performance was not significantly different from CISS on all measures (p > 0.35). No significant differences were detected in structural measures (p > 0.50). Automatic segmentation performed as well as the retest on all segmentation measures, whereas independent segmentations were lower than retest and/or automatic segmentation (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0736-0266 1554-527X |
DOI: | 10.1002/jor.25390 |