Validation and comparison of three different methods for automated identification of distal femoral landmarks in 3D.

Luisa Berger, Peter Brößner, Sonja Ehreiser, Kunihiko Tokunaga, Masashi Okamoto, Klaus Radermacher
{"title":"Validation and comparison of three different methods for automated identification of distal femoral landmarks in 3D.","authors":"Luisa Berger, Peter Brößner, Sonja Ehreiser, Kunihiko Tokunaga, Masashi Okamoto, Klaus Radermacher","doi":"10.1515/bmt-2025-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Identification of bony landmarks in medical images is of high importance for 3D planning in orthopaedic surgery. Automated landmark identification has the potential to optimize clinical routines and allows for the scientific analysis of large databases. To the authors' knowledge, no direct comparison of different methods for automated landmark detection on the same dataset has been published to date.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared 3 methods for automated femoral landmark identification: an artificial neural network, a statistical shape model and a geometric approach. All methods were compared against manual measurements of two raters on the task of identifying 6 femoral landmarks on CT data or derived surface models of 202 femora.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of the methods was in the range of the manual measurements and comparable to those reported in previous studies. The geometric approach showed a significantly higher average deviation compared to the manually selected reference landmarks, while there was no statistically significant difference for the neural network and the SSM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All fully automated methods show potential for use, depending on the use case. Characteristics of the different methods, such as the input data required (raw CT/segmented bone surface models, amount of training data required) and/or the methods robustness, can be used for method selection in the individual application.</p>","PeriodicalId":93905,"journal":{"name":"Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2025-0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Identification of bony landmarks in medical images is of high importance for 3D planning in orthopaedic surgery. Automated landmark identification has the potential to optimize clinical routines and allows for the scientific analysis of large databases. To the authors' knowledge, no direct comparison of different methods for automated landmark detection on the same dataset has been published to date.

Methods: We compared 3 methods for automated femoral landmark identification: an artificial neural network, a statistical shape model and a geometric approach. All methods were compared against manual measurements of two raters on the task of identifying 6 femoral landmarks on CT data or derived surface models of 202 femora.

Results: The accuracy of the methods was in the range of the manual measurements and comparable to those reported in previous studies. The geometric approach showed a significantly higher average deviation compared to the manually selected reference landmarks, while there was no statistically significant difference for the neural network and the SSM.

Conclusions: All fully automated methods show potential for use, depending on the use case. Characteristics of the different methods, such as the input data required (raw CT/segmented bone surface models, amount of training data required) and/or the methods robustness, can be used for method selection in the individual application.

验证和比较三种不同的方法在三维股骨远端地标自动识别。
目的:医学影像中骨标记的识别对骨科手术的三维规划具有重要意义。自动地标识别具有优化临床常规的潜力,并允许对大型数据库进行科学分析。据作者所知,迄今为止还没有发表过对同一数据集上自动地标检测的不同方法进行直接比较的文章。方法:我们比较了人工神经网络、统计形状模型和几何方法3种自动识别股骨标志的方法。将所有方法与人工测量的2个评分者在CT数据或导出的202根股骨表面模型上识别6个股骨标记的任务进行比较。结果:方法的准确度在人工测量的范围内,与以前的研究报告相当。与人工选择的参考地标相比,几何方法显示出明显更高的平均偏差,而神经网络和SSM之间没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:所有完全自动化的方法都显示出使用的潜力,这取决于用例。不同方法的特征,例如所需的输入数据(原始CT/分段骨表面模型,所需的训练数据量)和/或方法的鲁棒性,可用于单个应用中的方法选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信