Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27036584›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2016

Urinary bladder segmentation in CT urography using deep-learning convolutional neural network and level sets.

Kenny H Cha, Lubomir Hadjiiski, Ravi K Samala, Heang-Ping Chan, Elaine M Caoili, Richard H Cohan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
36.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 242 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Automatic breast lesion segmentation in phase preserved DCE-MRIs.Health information science and systems · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Kenny H ChaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0904.
Lubomir HadjiiskiDepartment of Radiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0904.
Ravi K SamalaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0904.
Heang-Ping ChanDepartment of Radiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0904.
Elaine M CaoiliDepartment of Radiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0904.
Richard H CohanDepartment of Radiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0904.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Biomarkers for Staging and Treatment Response Monitoring of Bladder CancerU01CA179106 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HADJIYSKI, LUBOMIR M · 2014 to 2017
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA179106NCI NIH HHS U01CA179106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe authors are developing a computerized system for bladder segmentation in CT urography (CTU) as a critical component for computer-aided detection of bladder cancer.

methodsA deep-learning convolutional neural network (DL-CNN) was trained to distinguish between the inside and the outside of the bladder using 160 000 regions of interest (ROI) from CTU images. The trained DL-CNN was used to estimate the likelihood of an ROI being inside the bladder for ROIs centered at each voxel in a CTU case, resulting in a likelihood map. Thresholding and hole-filling were applied to the map to generate the initial contour for the bladder, which was then refined by 3D and 2D level sets. The segmentation performance was evaluated using 173 cases: 81 cases in the training set (42 lesions, 21 wall thickenings, and 18 normal bladders) and 92 cases in the test set (43 lesions, 36 wall thickenings, and 13 normal bladders). The computerized segmentation accuracy using the DL likelihood map was compared to that using a likelihood map generated by Haar features and a random forest classifier, and that using our previous conjoint level set analysis and segmentation system (CLASS) without using a likelihood map. All methods were evaluated relative to the 3D hand-segmented reference contours.

resultsWith DL-CNN-based likelihood map and level sets, the average volume intersection ratio, average percent volume error, average absolute volume error, average minimum distance, and the Jaccard index for the test set were 81.9% ± 12.1%, 10.2% ± 16.2%, 14.0% ± 13.0%, 3.6 ± 2.0 mm, and 76.2% ± 11.8%, respectively. With the Haar-feature-based likelihood map and level sets, the corresponding values were 74.3% ± 12.7%, 13.0% ± 22.3%, 20.5% ± 15.7%, 5.7 ± 2.6 mm, and 66.7% ± 12.6%, respectively. With our previous CLASS with local contour refinement (LCR) method, the corresponding values were 78.0% ± 14.7%, 16.5% ± 16.8%, 18.2% ± 15.0%, 3.8 ± 2.3 mm, and 73.9% ± 13.5%, respectively.

conclusionsThe authors demonstrated that the DL-CNN can overcome the strong boundary between two regions that have large difference in gray levels and provides a seamless mask to guide level set segmentation, which has been a problem for many gradient-based segmentation methods. Compared to our previous CLASS with LCR method, which required two user inputs to initialize the segmentation, DL-CNN with level sets achieved better segmentation performance while using a single user input. Compared to the Haar-feature-based likelihood map, the DL-CNN-based likelihood map could guide the level sets to achieve better segmentation. The results demonstrate the feasibility of our new approach of using DL-CNN in combination with level sets for segmentation of the bladder.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerTomography, X-Ray ComputedUrographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLikelihood FunctionsReference StandardsUrinary Bladder

Identifiers

PMID27036584
PMCPMC4808067
OpenAlexW2307535535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.