Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27930665›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2016

Manual versus Automated Carotid Artery Plaque Component Segmentation in High and Lower Quality 3.0 Tesla MRI Scans.

Loek P Smits, Diederik F van Wijk, Raphael Duivenvoorden, Dongxiang Xu, Chun Yuan, Erik S Stroes, Aart J Nederveen

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Intracranial Vessel Wall Segmentation Using Convolutional Neural Networks.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2019
    Article
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

7 authors.

Loek P SmitsDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Diederik F van WijkDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Raphael DuivenvoordenDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dongxiang XuDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States of America.
Chun YuanDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States of America.
Erik S StroesDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Aart J NederveenDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo study the interscan reproducibility of manual versus automated segmentation of carotid artery plaque components, and the agreement between both methods, in high and lower quality MRI scans.

methods24 patients with 30-70% carotid artery stenosis were planned for 3T carotid MRI, followed by a rescan within 1 month. A multicontrast protocol (T1w,T2w, PDw and TOF sequences) was used. After co-registration and delineation of the lumen and outer wall, segmentation of plaque components (lipid-rich necrotic cores (LRNC) and calcifications) was performed both manually and automated. Scan quality was assessed using a visual quality scale.

resultsAgreement for the detection of LRNC (Cohen's kappa (k) is 0.04) and calcification (k = 0.41) between both manual and automated segmentation methods was poor. In the high-quality scans (visual quality score ≥ 3), the agreement between manual and automated segmentation increased to k = 0.55 and k = 0.58 for, respectively, the detection of LRNC and calcification larger than 1 mm2. Both manual and automated analysis showed good interscan reproducibility for the quantification of LRNC (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.94 and 0.80 respectively) and calcified plaque area (ICC of 0.95 and 0.77, respectively).

conclusionAgreement between manual and automated segmentation of LRNC and calcifications was poor, despite a good interscan reproducibility of both methods. The agreement between both methods increased to moderate in high quality scans. These findings indicate that image quality is a critical determinant of the performance of both manual and automated segmentation of carotid artery plaque components.

Indexed as

AgedAutomationCalcinosisCarotid ArteriesCarotid StenosisFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNecrosisReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID27930665
PMCPMC5145140

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.