- •Biological and Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering
- •Medical Image Processing
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.1 Medical Image Processing
- •1.2 Techniques
- •1.3 Applications
- •1.4 The Contribution of This Book
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 MATLAB and DIPimage
- •2.2.1 The Basics
- •2.2.2 Interactive Examination of an Image
- •2.2.3 Filtering and Measuring
- •2.2.4 Scripting
- •2.3 Cervical Cancer and the Pap Smear
- •2.4 An Interactive, Partial History of Automated Cervical Cytology
- •2.5 The Future of Automated Cytology
- •2.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •3.1 The Need for Seed-Driven Segmentation
- •3.1.1 Image Analysis and Computer Vision
- •3.1.2 Objects Are Semantically Consistent
- •3.1.3 A Separation of Powers
- •3.1.4 Desirable Properties of Seeded Segmentation Methods
- •3.2 A Review of Segmentation Techniques
- •3.2.1 Pixel Selection
- •3.2.2 Contour Tracking
- •3.2.3 Statistical Methods
- •3.2.4 Continuous Optimization Methods
- •3.2.4.1 Active Contours
- •3.2.4.2 Level Sets
- •3.2.4.3 Geodesic Active Contours
- •3.2.5 Graph-Based Methods
- •3.2.5.1 Graph Cuts
- •3.2.5.2 Random Walkers
- •3.2.5.3 Watershed
- •3.2.6 Generic Models for Segmentation
- •3.2.6.1 Continuous Models
- •3.2.6.2 Hierarchical Models
- •3.2.6.3 Combinations
- •3.3 A Unifying Framework for Discrete Seeded Segmentation
- •3.3.1 Discrete Optimization
- •3.3.2 A Unifying Framework
- •3.3.3 Power Watershed
- •3.4 Globally Optimum Continuous Segmentation Methods
- •3.4.1 Dealing with Noise and Artifacts
- •3.4.2 Globally Optimal Geodesic Active Contour
- •3.4.3 Maximal Continuous Flows and Total Variation
- •3.5 Comparison and Discussion
- •3.6 Conclusion and Future Work
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Deformable Models
- •4.2.1 Point-Based Snake
- •4.2.1.1 User Constraint Energy
- •4.2.1.2 Snake Optimization Method
- •4.2.2 Parametric Deformable Models
- •4.2.3 Geometric Deformable Models (Active Contours)
- •4.2.3.1 Curve Evolution
- •4.2.3.2 Level Set Concept
- •4.2.3.3 Geodesic Active Contour
- •4.2.3.4 Chan–Vese Deformable Model
- •4.3 Comparison of Deformable Models
- •4.4 Applications
- •4.4.1 Bone Surface Extraction from Ultrasound
- •4.4.2 Spinal Cord Segmentation
- •4.4.2.1 Spinal Cord Measurements
- •4.4.2.2 Segmentation Using Geodesic Active Contour
- •4.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Imaging Body Fat
- •5.3 Image Artifacts and Their Impact on Segmentation
- •5.3.1 Partial Volume Effect
- •5.3.2 Intensity Inhomogeneities
- •5.4 Overview of Segmentation Techniques Used to Isolate Fat
- •5.4.1 Thresholding
- •5.4.2 Selecting the Optimum Threshold
- •5.4.3 Gaussian Mixture Model
- •5.4.4 Region Growing
- •5.4.5 Adaptive Thresholding
- •5.4.6 Segmentation Using Overlapping Mosaics
- •5.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Clinical Context
- •6.3 Vessel Segmentation
- •6.3.1 Survey of Vessel Segmentation Methods
- •6.3.1.1 General Overview
- •6.3.1.2 Region-Growing Methods
- •6.3.1.3 Differential Analysis
- •6.3.1.4 Model-Based Filtering
- •6.3.1.5 Deformable Models
- •6.3.1.6 Statistical Approaches
- •6.3.1.7 Path Finding
- •6.3.1.8 Tracking Methods
- •6.3.1.9 Mathematical Morphology Methods
- •6.3.1.10 Hybrid Methods
- •6.4 Vessel Modeling
- •6.4.1 Motivation
- •6.4.1.1 Context
- •6.4.1.2 Usefulness
- •6.4.2 Deterministic Atlases
- •6.4.2.1 Pioneering Works
- •6.4.2.2 Graph-Based and Geometric Atlases
- •6.4.3 Statistical Atlases
- •6.4.3.1 Anatomical Variability Handling
- •6.4.3.2 Recent Works
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Linear Structure Detection Methods
- •7.3.1 CCM for Imaging Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
- •7.3.2 CCM Image Characteristics and Noise Artifacts
- •7.4.1 Foreground and Background Adaptive Models
- •7.4.2 Local Orientation and Parameter Estimation
- •7.4.3 Separation of Nerve Fiber and Background Responses
- •7.4.4 Postprocessing the Enhanced-Contrast Image
- •7.5 Quantitative Analysis and Evaluation of Linear Structure Detection Methods
- •7.5.1 Methodology of Evaluation
- •7.5.2 Database and Experiment Setup
- •7.5.3 Nerve Fiber Detection Comparison Results
- •7.5.4 Evaluation of Clinical Utility
- •7.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Methods
- •8.2.1 Linear Feature Detection by MDNMS
- •8.2.2 Check Intensities Within 1D Window
- •8.2.3 Finding Features Next to Each Other
- •8.2.4 Gap Linking for Linear Features
- •8.2.5 Quantifying Branching Structures
- •8.3 Linear Feature Detection on GPUs
- •8.3.1 Overview of GPUs and Execution Models
- •8.3.2 Linear Feature Detection Performance Analysis
- •8.3.3 Parallel MDNMS on GPUs
- •8.3.5 Results for GPU Linear Feature Detection
- •8.4.1 Architecture and Implementation
- •8.4.2 HCA-Vision Features
- •8.4.3 Linear Feature Detection and Analysis Results
- •8.5 Selected Applications
- •8.5.1 Neurite Tracing for Drug Discovery and Functional Genomics
- •8.5.2 Using Linear Features to Quantify Astrocyte Morphology
- •8.5.3 Separating Adjacent Bacteria Under Phase Contrast Microscopy
- •8.6 Perspectives and Conclusions
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Bone Imaging Modalities
- •9.2.1 X-Ray Projection Imaging
- •9.2.2 Computed Tomography
- •9.2.3 Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •9.2.4 Ultrasound Imaging
- •9.3 Quantifying the Microarchitecture of Trabecular Bone
- •9.3.1 Bone Morphometric Quantities
- •9.3.2 Texture Analysis
- •9.3.3 Frequency-Domain Methods
- •9.3.4 Use of Fractal Dimension Estimators for Texture Analysis
- •9.3.4.1 Frequency-Domain Estimation of the Fractal Dimension
- •9.3.4.2 Lacunarity
- •9.3.4.3 Lacunarity Parameters
- •9.3.5 Computer Modeling of Biomechanical Properties
- •9.4 Trends in Imaging of Bone
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.1.1 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
- •10.2 Imaging Modalities Used for Spinal Deformity Assessment
- •10.2.1 Current Clinical Practice: The Cobb Angle
- •10.2.2 An Alternative: The Ferguson Angle
- •10.3 Image Processing Methods
- •10.3.1 Previous Studies
- •10.3.2 Discrete and Continuum Functions for Spinal Curvature
- •10.3.3 Tortuosity
- •10.4 Assessment of Image Processing Methods
- •10.4.1 Patient Dataset and Image Processing
- •10.4.2 Results and Discussion
- •10.5 Summary
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Retinal Imaging
- •11.2.1 Features of a Retinal Image
- •11.2.2 The Reason for Automated Retinal Analysis
- •11.2.3 Acquisition of Retinal Images
- •11.3 Preprocessing of Retinal Images
- •11.4 Lesion Based Detection
- •11.4.1 Matched Filtering for Blood Vessel Segmentation
- •11.4.2 Morphological Operators in Retinal Imaging
- •11.5 Global Analysis of Retinal Vessel Patterns
- •11.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.1.1 The Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy
- •12.2 Automated Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy
- •12.2.1 Automated Detection of Microaneurysms
- •12.3 Image Databases
- •12.4 Tortuosity
- •12.4.1 Tortuosity Metrics
- •12.5 Tracing Retinal Vessels
- •12.5.1 NeuronJ
- •12.5.2 Other Software Packages
- •12.6 Experimental Results and Discussion
- •12.7 Summary and Future Work
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 Volumetric Image Visualization Methods
- •13.2.1 Multiplanar Reformation (2D slicing)
- •13.2.2 Surface-Based Rendering
- •13.2.3 Volumetric Rendering
- •13.3 Volume Rendering Principles
- •13.3.1 Optical Models
- •13.3.2 Color and Opacity Mapping
- •13.3.2.2 Transfer Function
- •13.3.3 Composition
- •13.3.4 Volume Illumination and Illustration
- •13.4 Software-Based Raycasting
- •13.4.1 Applications and Improvements
- •13.5 Splatting Algorithms
- •13.5.1 Performance Analysis
- •13.5.2 Applications and Improvements
- •13.6 Shell Rendering
- •13.6.1 Application and Improvements
- •13.7 Texture Mapping
- •13.7.1 Performance Analysis
- •13.7.2 Applications
- •13.7.3 Improvements
- •13.7.3.1 Shading Inclusion
- •13.7.3.2 Empty Space Skipping
- •13.8 Discussion and Outlook
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.1.1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •14.1.2 Compressed Sensing
- •14.1.3 The Role of Prior Knowledge
- •14.2 Sparsity in MRI Images
- •14.2.1 Characteristics of MR Images (Prior Knowledge)
- •14.2.2 Choice of Transform
- •14.2.3 Use of Data Ordering
- •14.3 Theory of Compressed Sensing
- •14.3.1 Data Acquisition
- •14.3.2 Signal Recovery
- •14.4 Progress in Sparse Sampling for MRI
- •14.4.1 Review of Results from the Literature
- •14.4.2 Results from Our Work
- •14.4.2.1 PECS
- •14.4.2.2 SENSECS
- •14.4.2.3 PECS Applied to CE-MRA
- •14.5 Prospects for Future Developments
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Acquisition of DT Images
- •15.2.1 Fundamentals of DTI
- •15.2.2 The Pulsed Field Gradient Spin Echo (PFGSE) Method
- •15.2.3 Diffusion Imaging Sequences
- •15.2.4 Example: Anisotropic Diffusion of Water in the Eye Lens
- •15.2.5 Data Acquisition
- •15.3 Digital Processing of DT Images
- •15.3.2 Diagonalization of the DT
- •15.3.3 Gradient Calibration Factors
- •15.3.4 Sorting Bias
- •15.3.5 Fractional Anisotropy
- •15.3.6 Other Anisotropy Metrics
- •15.4 Applications of DTI to Articular Cartilage
- •15.4.1 Bovine AC
- •15.4.2 Human AC
- •References
- •Index
6 Angiographic Image Analysis |
117 |
into an object, i.e., a structure of interest, and a background, i.e., the remainder of the image volume. In the context of angiographic imaging, we consider that vessel segmentation includes (a) methods that detect either whole vessels (i.e., their lumen and/or walls) or their medial axes and/or (b) methods that perform low-level processing or high-level knowledge extraction (e.g., vein/artery discrimination [100, 103] or vessel labelling [14, 42]). We also consider some methods which could be classified as filtering, since their purpose is to perform vessel enhancement, which consists mainly of denoising, but also of vessel reconnection (e.g., in the case of stenosis, or of signal loss [27, 76]).
As discussed above, the difficulty in performing vessel segmentation is due to the sparseness of data, and the possible presence of irrelevant signal (other tissues, artifacts or noise). Moreover, anatomical properties of vessels are highly variable in size, appearance, geometry and topology, even more so in pathological cases such as aneurysms, stenoses, calcifications or arteriovenous malformations.
There exist several kinds of angiographic data, generally well-fitted for visualizing specific vascular structures, and consequently for dealing with specific clinical issues. The choice of a segmentation method is often linked to the type of images under consideration, the vessel(s) being studied and the clinical purpose. The next section discusses the various methodological segmentation strategies.
6.3.1 Survey of Vessel Segmentation Methods
6.3.1.1 General Overview
Several surveys devoted to 3D vascular segmentation have been proposed during the last decade. The survey proposed in [94] focuses on vessel segmentation from MRA images,1 and divides them into skeleton methods (with an interest in medial axes) and non-skeleton ones (that aim at detecting whole vascular volumes). Another (globally similar) classification is proposed in [51], which deals more generally with vessel segmentation from any kind of data independently of their dimension or acquisition technique. The most recent survey [56] mainly refers to 3D vessel segmentation from MRA and CTA, and divides its description into (a) the a priori information which can be used for segmentation, (b) the basic tools using this information for detecting vessels, and (c) the methodological frameworks involving these tools, as well as a discussion on preand post-processing considerations.
In the next section, we introduce the segmentation methods divided into eight main categories corresponding to the main image processing strategies on which
1Part I of this survey [93] also describes MRA acquisition techniques.
118 |
O. Tankyevych et al. |
they rely: region-growing, differential analysis, model-based filtering, deformable models, path finding, vessel tracking, statistical approaches, and mathematical morphology.2
6.3.1.2 Region-Growing Methods
Region-growing has been one of the first strategies considered for image segmentation [117], and in particular medical/angiographic ones.Basically, region-growing relies on two elements: one (or several) seed(s) [1] assumed to belong to the structure of interest to be segmented, and a propagation criterion, enabling the segmentation of the object from the seed, by iterative addition of adjacent voxels.
In the case of vessel segmentation, seeds are generally defined interactively inside vessels. The seeds can also be detected automatically, especially in the case where they constitute the root of a vascular tree [69]. The possible definition of several seeds can straightforwardly lead to an application of region-growing to vessel separation, and in particular, to vein/artery discrimination. In such a case, a set of seeds is defined for arteries and veins, respectively. A competitive regiongrowing is then performed, based on ad hoc propagation criteria (e.g., a measure of gray-scale connectedness in [100]).3
The propagation criterion is commonly based on intensity properties, related to the high-intensity vascular signal. However, more sophisticated properties can also be embedded in this segmentation strategy. In particular, it has been proposed to consider a priori knowledge related to the shape and size of the vessels to be segmented [68], or to their topology [78]. The correctness of the orientation of the vessels during the segmentation process has also been considered by proposing “wave propagation” strategies [115], which aim to constrain the segmentation front to remain normal to the vessel axis. It may be noticed that this kind of approach has been further used for vessel tracking methods (discussed later in the section). The concept of wave propagation has also led to the development of methods related to both deformable models (level-sets) and path-finding approaches, namely, fastmarching methods [61].
Region-growing methods rely on a simple algorithmic framework, which makes their development and use quite easy and induces a low (generally linear) computational cost. In addition, they guarantee termination which is not systematically available for other non-monotonic strategies. However, the connectivity hypothesis intrinsically associated with this strategy constitutes a weakness, since the method may fail in segmenting vessels in case of vascular signal loss (due to partial volume
2Due to limited space we heave omitted those methods which have resulted led to fewer publications, such as neural network-based methods [52].
3Note that, by duality, region-growing also provides solutions to segmenting vessels by skeletonization. In such a case, the growing process starts from a seed being a subset of the background (which can then be automatically defined), and generally includes topological constraints in the propagation criterion [27, 76].
6 Angiographic Image Analysis |
119 |
effect, or flow artifacts, for instance). A contrario, the use of a criterion being too permissive may lead to leakage phenomena, and a final over-segmentation of vessels [66]. In this context, region-growing methods have often been preferentially devoted to the segmentation of large and/or well-contrasted vessels (for which intensity and connectivity hypotheses are generally reliable).
6.3.1.3 Differential Analysis
Vessels are generally bright structures within a dark background. If an image is viewed as the discrete analog of a function from R3 to R, vessels then appear as the maxima of this function. Consequently, it may be possible to detect them by analyzing the differential properties of the image.
In order to deal with the discrete/continuous issue involved by this strategy, the (discrete) image is convolved with a series of Gaussian derivatives of different standard deviations and in different directions, and the responses obtained are combined into a matrix.
In the case of first derivatives analysis, this matrix, which is the covariance matrix of gradient vectors [2, 8], is called the structure tensor. Except for vessel segmentation, the first derivatives have also been involved in diffusion filtering, which consists of the propagation of information in the orientations suggested by these derivatives [60].
In the case of second derivatives analysis, the resulting information is gathered in the Hessian matrix. The main idea behind eigen analysis of the Hessian matrix is to extract one or more principal directions of the local structure of the image. This gives the direction of the minimal curvature, the principal direction in the tubular structure and a high curvature in the vessel cross-section plane, which makes the filter more efficient than line filters.
Compared with the image gradient, the Hessian matrix can capture the shape characteristics of objects, such as tubes, planes, blob surfaces or noise. In particular, the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix can be combined into a vesselness function in order to describe plate-, blob-like and tubular objects [34, 53, 84].
These methods can be performed in multi-scale frameworks in order to detect objects of different sizes. It has to be noticed that the choice and number of the considered scales is particularly important in such methods. If performed at a unique scale, they do not detect vessels of different sizes, especially those out of the range of the considered scale. Conversely, if performed at numerous scales, they can potentially detect all the vessels but they become computationally quite expensive.
In addition, the robustness of such methods to noise is strongly related to the considered scale. For large scales, the blurring effect of Gaussian filtering tends to remove noise effects and, unfortunately, smaller objects. A contrario, for small scales, the noise is hardly corrected by this filtering, and the method may bias the derivative evaluation accuracy, thus requiring the incorporation of assumptions related to noise in the method [113].
120 |
O. Tankyevych et al. |
Despite some weaknesses, which require specific care, derivative-based methods provide efficient solutions for detecting vessels, especially in a multi-scale framework, and have therefore often been considered for the design of segmentation methods based on model filtering (see next section) or for the guidance of deformable models, for instance.
6.3.1.4 Model-Based Filtering
In general, vessel appearance can be used as a prior for segmentation. In this case, such a prior can describe vessel specific characteristics: photometric (usually being brighter than the background) and/or geometric (curvilinear). The most simple are intensity and geometry-based models, which are often combined in deformable model methodologies (see next section). We will describe such models in the order of increasing complexity.
Intensity Models
Intensity models, which are among the simplest ones, strongly depend on the imaging modality. They can integrate brightness, contrast and gradient priors, but also imaging properties, like intensity ranges or intensity variation based on location, or even noise distribution [2] (see also Sect. 6.3.1.6 for a discussion of noise modeling).
In [111], a cylindrical parametric intensity model is directly fit to the image intensities through an incremental process based on a Kalman filter for estimating the radii of the vessels. While in [79], local neighborhood intensities are considered in a spherical polar coordinate system in order to capture the common properties for the different types of vascular points. A natural integration into this kind of models is a background description [85, 102].
While simple, intensity models are highly dependent on the nature of the images. Therefore, they have to be tuned for all kinds of circumstances, such as artifacts or other image distortions, as well as to compensate for image variability.
Geometry Models
The assumption that vessels are elongated thin objects, globally similar to tubes has been used for the design of several geometric models, such as generalized cylinders, superellipsoids, Gaussian lines, or bar-like profiles [9, 53, 102].
Based on second-order derivatives (see previous section), several models incorporating geometrical properties have been developed. In [34], an ideal cylinder is proposed in order to enhance vessels within a measure called vesselness, while in [84] a more general model incorporates elliptical shapes.
