Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
by
Demeyere, N.
, Jenkinson, M.
, Vass, L.
, Mair, G.
, Hanayik, T.
, Moore, M. J.
, Pendlebury, S. T.
in
Automation
/ Bioinformatics
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Biomedicine
/ Computational Biology/Bioinformatics
/ Computer Appl. in Life Sciences
/ Humans
/ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Medical imaging
/ Neural networks
/ Neural Networks, Computer
/ Neuroimaging
/ Neurology
/ Neurosciences
/ Original
/ Original Article
/ Patients
/ Skull
/ Software
/ Stroke
/ Stroke - diagnostic imaging
/ Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
2022
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
by
Demeyere, N.
, Jenkinson, M.
, Vass, L.
, Mair, G.
, Hanayik, T.
, Moore, M. J.
, Pendlebury, S. T.
in
Automation
/ Bioinformatics
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Biomedicine
/ Computational Biology/Bioinformatics
/ Computer Appl. in Life Sciences
/ Humans
/ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Medical imaging
/ Neural networks
/ Neural Networks, Computer
/ Neuroimaging
/ Neurology
/ Neurosciences
/ Original
/ Original Article
/ Patients
/ Skull
/ Software
/ Stroke
/ Stroke - diagnostic imaging
/ Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
2022
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
by
Demeyere, N.
, Jenkinson, M.
, Vass, L.
, Mair, G.
, Hanayik, T.
, Moore, M. J.
, Pendlebury, S. T.
in
Automation
/ Bioinformatics
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Biomedicine
/ Computational Biology/Bioinformatics
/ Computer Appl. in Life Sciences
/ Humans
/ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Medical imaging
/ Neural networks
/ Neural Networks, Computer
/ Neuroimaging
/ Neurology
/ Neurosciences
/ Original
/ Original Article
/ Patients
/ Skull
/ Software
/ Stroke
/ Stroke - diagnostic imaging
/ Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
2022
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
Journal Article
A Comparison of Cranial Cavity Extraction Tools for Non-contrast Enhanced CT Scans in Acute Stroke Patients
2022
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Cranial cavity extraction is often the first step in quantitative neuroimaging analyses. However, few automated, validated extraction tools have been developed for non-contrast enhanced CT scans (NECT). The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast freely available tools in an unseen dataset of real-world clinical NECT head scans in order to assess the performance and generalisability of these tools. This study included data from a demographically representative sample of 428 patients who had completed NECT scans following hospitalisation for stroke. In a subset of the scans (
n
= 20), the intracranial spaces were segmented using automated tools and compared to the gold standard of manual delineation to calculate accuracy, precision, recall, and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values. Further, three readers independently performed regional visual comparisons of the quality of the results in a larger dataset (
n
= 428). Three tools were found; one of these had unreliable performance so subsequent evaluation was discontinued. The remaining tools included one that was adapted from the FMRIB software library (fBET) and a convolutional neural network- based tool (rBET). Quantitative comparison showed comparable accuracy, precision, recall and DSC values (fBET: 0.984 ± 0.002; rBET: 0.984 ± 0.003;
p
= 0.99) between the tools; however, intracranial volume was overestimated. Visual comparisons identified characteristic regional differences in the resulting cranial cavity segmentations. Overall fBET had highest visual quality ratings and was preferred by the readers in the majority of subject results (84%). However, both tools produced high quality extractions of the intracranial space and our findings should improve confidence in these automated CT tools. Pre- and post-processing techniques may further improve these results.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.