On the Evaluation and Validation of Off-the-shelf Statistical Shape Modeling Tools: A Clinical Application.

Anupama Goparaju, Ibolya Csecs, Alan Morris, Evgueni Kholmovski, Nassir Marrouche, Ross Whitaker, Shireen Elhabian
{"title":"On the Evaluation and Validation of Off-the-shelf Statistical Shape Modeling Tools: A Clinical Application.","authors":"Anupama Goparaju,&nbsp;Ibolya Csecs,&nbsp;Alan Morris,&nbsp;Evgueni Kholmovski,&nbsp;Nassir Marrouche,&nbsp;Ross Whitaker,&nbsp;Shireen Elhabian","doi":"10.1007/978-3-030-04747-4_2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Statistical shape modeling (SSM) has proven useful in many areas of biology and medicine as a new generation of morphometric approaches for the quantitative analysis of anatomical shapes. Recently, the increased availability of high-resolution in vivo images of anatomy has led to the development and distribution of open-source computational tools to model anatomical shapes and their variability within populations with unprecedented detail and statistical power. Nonetheless, there is little work on the evaluation and validation of such tools as related to clinical applications that rely on morphometric quantifications for treatment planning. To address this lack of validation, we systematically assess the outcome of widely used off-the-shelf SSM tools, namely ShapeWorks, SPHARM-PDM, and Deformetrica, in the context of designing closure devices for left atrium appendage (LAA) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients to prevent stroke, where an incomplete LAA closure may be worse than no closure. This study is motivated by the potential role of SSM in the geometric design of closure devices, which could be informed by population-level statistics, and patient-specific device selection, which is driven by anatomical measurements that could be automated by relating patient-level anatomy to population-level morphometrics. Hence, understanding the consequences of different SSM tools for the final analysis is critical for the careful choice of the tool to be deployed in real clinical scenarios. Results demonstrate that estimated measurements from ShapeWorks model are more consistent compared to models from Deformetrica and SPHARM-PDM. Furthermore, ShapeWorks and Deformetrica shape models capture clinically relevant population-level variability compared to SPHARM-PDM models.</p>","PeriodicalId":74795,"journal":{"name":"Shape in medical imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2018, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 20, 2018 : proceedings. ShapeMI (Workshop) (2018 : Granada, Spain)","volume":" ","pages":"14-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/978-3-030-04747-4_2","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shape in medical imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2018, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 20, 2018 : proceedings. ShapeMI (Workshop) (2018 : Granada, Spain)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04747-4_2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/11/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Statistical shape modeling (SSM) has proven useful in many areas of biology and medicine as a new generation of morphometric approaches for the quantitative analysis of anatomical shapes. Recently, the increased availability of high-resolution in vivo images of anatomy has led to the development and distribution of open-source computational tools to model anatomical shapes and their variability within populations with unprecedented detail and statistical power. Nonetheless, there is little work on the evaluation and validation of such tools as related to clinical applications that rely on morphometric quantifications for treatment planning. To address this lack of validation, we systematically assess the outcome of widely used off-the-shelf SSM tools, namely ShapeWorks, SPHARM-PDM, and Deformetrica, in the context of designing closure devices for left atrium appendage (LAA) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients to prevent stroke, where an incomplete LAA closure may be worse than no closure. This study is motivated by the potential role of SSM in the geometric design of closure devices, which could be informed by population-level statistics, and patient-specific device selection, which is driven by anatomical measurements that could be automated by relating patient-level anatomy to population-level morphometrics. Hence, understanding the consequences of different SSM tools for the final analysis is critical for the careful choice of the tool to be deployed in real clinical scenarios. Results demonstrate that estimated measurements from ShapeWorks model are more consistent compared to models from Deformetrica and SPHARM-PDM. Furthermore, ShapeWorks and Deformetrica shape models capture clinically relevant population-level variability compared to SPHARM-PDM models.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估和验证现成的统计形状建模工具:临床应用。
统计形状建模(SSM)已被证明在生物学和医学的许多领域有用的新一代形态测量方法的定量分析解剖形状。最近,高分辨率体内解剖图像的可用性增加,导致了开源计算工具的发展和分布,以前所未有的细节和统计能力来模拟解剖形状及其在人群中的变异性。尽管如此,在评估和验证这些依赖于形态计量量化治疗计划的临床应用相关工具方面的工作很少。为了解决这一缺乏验证的问题,我们系统地评估了广泛使用的现成SSM工具的结果,即ShapeWorks, spham - pdm和deformmetrica,在设计房颤(AF)患者左心房附件(LAA)关闭装置以预防中风的背景下,LAA关闭不完全可能比没有关闭更糟糕。这项研究的动机是SSM在闭合装置的几何设计中的潜在作用,这可以通过人口水平的统计数据和患者特定的装置选择来实现,这是由解剖学测量驱动的,可以通过将患者水平的解剖学与人口水平的形态计量学相关联而自动化。因此,了解不同SSM工具对最终分析的影响对于在实际临床场景中谨慎选择工具至关重要。结果表明,与Deformetrica和spham - pdm模型相比,ShapeWorks模型的估计测量值更加一致。此外,与spham - pdm模型相比,ShapeWorks和Deformetrica形状模型捕获了临床相关的人群水平变异性。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信