Comparison of Common Methods for Precision Volume Measurement of Hematoma

被引:18
|
作者
Chen, Minhong [1 ]
Li, Zhong [1 ]
Ding, Jianping [2 ]
Lu, Xingqi [2 ]
Cheng, Yinan [3 ]
Lin, Jiayun [1 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Sci Tech Univ, Coll Sci, Hangzhou 310018, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[2] Hangzhou Normal Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[3] Southern Univ Sci & Technol, Coll Sci, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE; 3D SLICER; POWERFUL;
D O I
10.1155/2020/6930836
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Purpose. Our aim is to conduct analysis and comparison of some methods commonly used to measure the volume of hematoma, for example, slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer software method (projection method).Method. In order to validate the accuracy of the slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, these three methods were first applied to measure two known volumetric models, respectively. Then, a total of 198 patients diagnosed with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) were recruited. The patients were split into 3 different groups based on the hematoma size: group 1:volume<10 ml(n=89), group 2: volume between 10 and 20 ml (n=59), and group 3:volume>20 ml(n=50). And the shape of the hematoma was classed into regular (round to ellipsoid) with smooth margins (n=76), irregular with frayed margins (n=85), and multilobular (n=37). The slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method were adopted to measure the volume of hematoma, respectively, considering the nonclosed models and the models which may contain inaccurate normal information during CT scan. Moreover, the results were compared with the 3D-Slicer method for closed models.Results. There was a significant estimation error (P<0.05) using these three methods to calculate the volume of the closed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be14.2086743 +/- 0.900559087 ml,14.2119130 +/- 0.900851812 ml, and14.2123825 +/- 0.900835916 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, and the voxelization method, respectively, compared to14.212656 +/- 0.900992371 ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was-0.00398172 ml,-0.00074303 ml, and-0.00027354 ml caused by slice method 1, slice method 2, and voxelization method, respectively. There was a significant estimation error (P<0.05), applying these three methods to calculate the volume of the nonclosed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be14.1928246 +/- 0.902210314 ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was calculated to be-0.00402121 ml,-0.00078237 ml, -0.00031288 ml, and-0.01983136 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, respectively.Conclusions. The 3D-Slicer software method is considered as a stable and capable method of high precision for the calculation of a closed hematoma model with correct normal direction, while it would be inappropriate for the nonclosed model nor the model with incorrect normal direction. The slice method and voxelization method can be the supplement and improvement of the 3D-Slicer software method, for the purpose of achieving precision medicine.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Common coating thickness measurement methods
    Finsh. Today, 2007, 11 (71-73):
  • [32] Quantitative Comparison of the Most Common Particle Sizing and Surface Area Measurement Methods.
    Tyrala, Dorota
    Konstanty, Janusz
    Funtai Oyobi Fummatsu Yakin/Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder Metallurgy, 2025, 72
  • [33] Methods for improving the measurement precision of the Rogowski coils
    Wang, HM
    Zheng, SX
    ISTM/2005: 6TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TEST AND MEASUREMENT, VOLS 1-9, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, 2005, : 2789 - 2792
  • [34] Multi-point methods for precision measurement
    Kiyono S.
    Seimitsu Kogaku Kaishi/Journal of the Japan Society for Precision Engineering, 2010, 76 (02): : 165 - 168
  • [35] COMPARISON OF CALIBRATION METHODS IN THE PRECISION OF A RING-TYPE CUFFLESS BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT DEVICE
    Lee, Huijin
    Lee, Hae-Young
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2024, 42
  • [36] Comparisons of precision measurement methods for metallic resistivities
    Kang, Jeon Hong
    Yu, Kwang Min
    Kim, Han Jun
    Ryu, Je Cheon
    Han, Sang Ok
    ADVANCED NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION I, PTS 1 AND 2, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, 321-323 : 1465 - 1469
  • [37] Evaluation of precision, accuracy, linearity, interference, and method comparison of four creatinine measurement methods.
    Lee, YW
    Kim, SJ
    Ki, CS
    Jeong, GY
    Ko, SY
    Kim, JW
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 1998, 44 : A114 - A114
  • [38] Blood volume measurement:: The comparison of pulse dye densitometry and Dill and Costill's methods
    de Chantemèle, EB
    Gauquelin-Koch, G
    Duvareille, M
    Pellet, N
    Gharib, C
    Custaud, MA
    LIFE SCIENCES, 2006, 78 (14) : 1564 - 1569
  • [39] Minimum detectable difference for hematoma volume measurement in acute intracerebral hemorrhage
    Rodriguez-Luna, D.
    Boyko, M.
    Subramaniam, S.
    Klourfeld, E.
    Jo, P.
    Diederichs, D.
    Dowlatshahi, D.
    Hill, M. D.
    Molina, C. A.
    Demchuk, A. M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2015, 10 : 296 - 297
  • [40] PHOTOELASTICITY - PRECISION COMPARISON AS AN INDICATION OF MEASUREMENT RELIABILITY
    ROBINSON, KG
    MOON, PC
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1995, 74 : 246 - 246