IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

Abstract

Purpose: To 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. Methods: 24 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. Results: Agreement 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). Conclusion: Agreement 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Loek P Smits & Diederik F van Wijk & Raphael Duivenvoorden & Dongxiang Xu & Chun Yuan & Erik S Stroes & Aart J Nederveen, 2016. "Manual versus Automated Carotid Artery Plaque Component Segmentation in High and Lower Quality 3.0 Tesla MRI Scans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164267
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164267
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164267&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164267?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.