How reliable are texture measurements?

被引:3
|
作者
Robins, Marthony [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Solomon, Justin [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Hoye, Jocelyn [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Abadi, Ehsan [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Marin, Daniele [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Samei, Ehsan [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Carl E Ravin Adv Imaging Labs, Durham, NC 27705 USA
[2] Med Phys Grad Program, Durham, NC 27705 USA
[3] Dept Radiol, Durham, NC 27705 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Durham, NC 27705 USA
关键词
CT; simulation; texture features; radiomics; voxel size; slice thickness; reconstruction algorithm; VOLUME ESTIMATION; LUNG NODULES; CT; FEATURES; SIZE;
D O I
10.1117/12.2294591
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to assess the bias (objectivity) and variability (robustness) of computed tomography (CT) texture features (internal heterogeneities) across a series of image acquisition settings and reconstruction algorithms. We simulated a series of CT images using a computational phantom with anatomically-informed texture. 288 clinically-relevant simulation conditions were generated representing three slice thicknesses (0.625, 1.25, 2.5 mm), four in-plane pixel sizes (0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 mm), three dose levels (CTDIvol = 1.90, 3.75, 7.50 mGy), and 8 reconstruction kernels. Each texture feature was sampled with 4 unique volumes of interest (VOIs) (244, 1953, 15625, 125000 mm(3)). Twenty-one statistical texture features were calculated and compared between the ground truth phantom (i.e., pre-imaging) and its corresponding post-imaging simulations. Metrics of comparison included (1) the percent relative difference (PRD) between the post-imaging simulation and the ground truth, and (2) the coefficient of variation (%COV) across simulated instances of texture features. The PRD and %COV ranged from -100% to 4500%, and 0.8% to 49%, respectively. PRD decreased with increased slice thickness, in-plane pixel size, and dose. The dynamic range of results indicate that image acquisition and reconstruction conditions (i.e., slice thicknesses, in-plane pixel sizes, dose levels, and reconstruction kernels) can lead to significant bias and variability in texture feature measurements.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] How reliable are measurements with arthrometers?
    E. Eriksson
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2000, 8 : 131 - 131
  • [2] How reliable are measurements with arthrometers?
    Eriksson, E
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2000, 8 (03) : 131 - 131
  • [3] HOW RELIABLE ARE TUMOR MEASUREMENTS
    GURLAND, J
    JOHNSON, RO
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1965, 194 (09): : 973 - &
  • [4] HOW RELIABLE ARE OCCIPITAL ASYMMETRY MEASUREMENTS
    CHU, CC
    TRANEL, D
    DAMASIO, H
    NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 1994, 32 (12) : 1503 - +
  • [5] How Reliable Are Bedside Measurements of Sensation?
    Christiansen, Michael
    Zhang, Nan
    Ross, Mark
    Goodman, Brent
    Snyder, Charlene Hoffman
    Smith, Benn
    ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, 2017, 82 : S203 - S203
  • [6] Microalbuminuria: how informative and reliable are individual measurements?
    Donnelly, R
    Rea, R
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2003, 21 (07) : 1229 - 1233
  • [7] HOW RELIABLE ARE THE MEASUREMENTS OF CRYSTALLIZATION CONDITIONS IN URINE
    BAUMANN, JM
    UROLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1988, 16 (03): : 133 - 135
  • [8] HOW RELIABLE ARE RHEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS ON POLYMER MELTS
    GAHLEITNER, M
    KNOGLER, B
    PIRGOV, W
    KUNSTSTOFFE-PLAST EUROPE, 1995, 85 (07): : 948 - 951
  • [10] How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?
    Cox, L. A., Jr.
    Van Orden, D. R.
    Lee, R. J.
    Arlauckas, S. M.
    Kautz, R. A.
    Warzel, A. L.
    Bailey, K. F.
    Ranpuria, A. K.
    REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2015, 73 (01) : 126 - 136