Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26162931›Full record

ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2015

Repeatability of in vivo quantification of atherosclerotic carotid artery plaque components by supervised multispectral classification.

Shan Gao, Ronald van 't Klooster, Diederik F van Wijk, Aart J Nederveen, Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt, Rob J van der Geest

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Semi-automatic carotid intraplaque hemorrhage detection and quantification on Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Acquisition Gradient-Echo (MP-RAGE) with optimized threshold selection.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016
    Article
  6. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shan GaoDivision of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ronald van 't KloosterDivision of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Diederik F van WijkDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Aart J NederveenDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Boudewijn P F LelieveldtDivision of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rob J van der GeestDivision of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. R.J.van_der_Geest@lumc.nl.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the agreement and scan-rescan repeatability of automated and manual plaque segmentation for the quantification of in vivo carotid artery plaque components from multi-contrast MRI. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty-three patients with 30-70% stenosis underwent two 3T MR carotid vessel wall exams within a 1 month interval. T1w, T2w, PDw and TOF images were acquired around the region of maximum vessel narrowing. Manual delineation of the vessel wall and plaque components (lipid, calcification, loose matrix) by an experienced observer provided the reference standard for training and evaluation of an automated plaque classifier. Areas of different plaque components and fibrous tissue were quantified and compared between segmentation methods and scan sessions.

resultsIn total, 304 slices from 23 patients were included in the segmentation experiment, in which 144 aligned slice pairs were available for repeatability analysis. The correlation between manual and automated segmented areas was 0.35 for lipid, 0.66 for calcification, 0.50 for loose matrix and 0.82 for fibrous tissue. For the comparison between scan sessions, the coefficient of repeatability of area measurement obtained by automated segmentation was lower than by manual delineation for lipid (9.9 vs. 17.1 mm(2)), loose matrix (13.8 vs. 21.2 mm(2)) and fibrous tissue (24.6 vs. 35.0 mm(2)), and was similar for calcification (20.0 vs. 17.6 mm(2)).

conclusionApplication of an automated classifier for segmentation of carotid vessel wall plaque components from in vivo MRI results in improved scan-rescan repeatability compared to manual analysis.

Indexed as

AgedAutomationCarotid StenosisFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePlaque, AtheroscleroticReproducibility of ResultsAtherosclerotic plaqueCardiovascular diseaseCarotid arteryClassificationMulti-contrast MRIRepeatability

Identifiers

PMID26162931
PMCPMC4651977
OpenAlexW1013927028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.