IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0292092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis between different volumetric methods on measuring intracranial hemorrhage incorporating roundness index

Author

Listed:
  • Supanut Chaidee
  • Papangkorn Inkeaw
  • Thampaphon Makee
  • Kamoltip Khamyod
  • Salita Angkurawaranon
  • Patrinee Traisathit
  • Tanat Vaniyapong
  • Imjai Chitapanarux

Abstract

Intracranial hematoma (ICH) volume is considered a predictor of clinical outcome and mortality rate in ICH patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The ABC/2 method for ICH volume is the standard method used to date, however, its level of accuracy has been questioned in some studies. This study compared the performance of the ABC/2 method with planimetry and truncated pyramidal methods to highlight the potential of the planimetry method applied with automatic segmentation for evaluation of epidural hematoma (EDH) and intraparenchymal hematoma (IPH) volume. Six different phantoms were designed to evaluate the accuracy of volume estimation methods. 221 hematoma regions extracted from CT scans of 125 patients with head injury were also used to analyze the efficiency. The roundness index was utilized for the quantification of the ellipsoid-like shape. Regions of EDH and IPH on the CT scans were annotated by radiologists. The estimation errors for each method were statistically analyzed and compared. In addition, the relationship between the errors and roundness index was examined. The planimetry method showed the lowest relative error on phantom data. In the case of the CT scan data, the truncated pyramidal method resulted in the underestimation of the volumes of EDH and IPH. Meanwhile, the ABC/2, through principal component analysis (PCA) in the two-dimensional and PCA in the three-dimensional methods, resulted in a significant overestimation. In addition, both these approaches produced relative errors that showed a correlation with the roundness indexes for IPH. In comparison to other methods, the planimetry method had the lowest level of error with regards to calculation of the volume and it was also independent of the hematoma shape. The planimetry method, therefore, has the potential to serve as a useful tool for the assessment of ICH volume in TBI patients by using a deep learning system.

Suggested Citation

  • Supanut Chaidee & Papangkorn Inkeaw & Thampaphon Makee & Kamoltip Khamyod & Salita Angkurawaranon & Patrinee Traisathit & Tanat Vaniyapong & Imjai Chitapanarux, 2023. "Comparative analysis between different volumetric methods on measuring intracranial hemorrhage incorporating roundness index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0292092
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292092&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0292092?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:pone00:0292092. 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.