Myeong Seong Yoon, Dong-Hyun Jang, Juncheol Lee, Jaehoon Jeong, Do Gwon Kim, Hyojin Lim, Dong Keon Lee, Jaehoon Oh
{"title":"尿结石大小的实际和自动CT测量的比较:一项幻影研究。","authors":"Myeong Seong Yoon, Dong-Hyun Jang, Juncheol Lee, Jaehoon Jeong, Do Gwon Kim, Hyojin Lim, Dong Keon Lee, Jaehoon Oh","doi":"10.1007/s00240-025-01708-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Urinary stone size is key in determining treatment. Although computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used for diagnosing urinary stones, measurements of stone size obtained from CT images may be inaccurate compared to actual size. Twenty-four urinary stone phantoms were 3D printed at three densities (100, 1000, and 3000 Hounsfield units [HU]) and eight sizes. CT images of the phantoms were taken. Nineteen radiologists and 33 emergency physicians from two institutions measured stone sizes on CT images using mediastinum and bone settings. An automated algorithm segmented regions of interest and estimated stone size using pixel HUs. Mean absolute error (MAE) was assessed for the accuracy of each measurement method against known phantom sizes. For the mediastinum setting, MAEs for 100, 1000, and 3000 HU stone phantoms were 1.05 mm ± 0.06, 1.01 mm ± 0.06, and 2.38 mm ± 0.17, respectively. For the bone setting, MAEs were 0.98 mm ± 0.07, 0.55 mm ± 0.10, and 1.91 mm ± 0.06, respectively. For automated measurements, MAEs were 1.16 mm, 0.21 mm, and 2.10 mm, respectively. Participant-to-participant variability was observed across all measurement settings, regardless of the stone density or window used. For stone size measurements on CT images, the bone setting provided more accurate results than the mediastinum setting. Automated measurement methods, which estimate stone size by outlining its edges, were more accurate than manual measurements for 1000 HU stones, the most common stone density. However, for stones with densities above or below 1000 HU, the accuracy of the automated method may decrease.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"53 1","pages":"71"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11991932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of actual and automated CT measurements of urinary stone size: a phantom study.\",\"authors\":\"Myeong Seong Yoon, Dong-Hyun Jang, Juncheol Lee, Jaehoon Jeong, Do Gwon Kim, Hyojin Lim, Dong Keon Lee, Jaehoon Oh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-025-01708-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Urinary stone size is key in determining treatment. Although computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used for diagnosing urinary stones, measurements of stone size obtained from CT images may be inaccurate compared to actual size. Twenty-four urinary stone phantoms were 3D printed at three densities (100, 1000, and 3000 Hounsfield units [HU]) and eight sizes. CT images of the phantoms were taken. Nineteen radiologists and 33 emergency physicians from two institutions measured stone sizes on CT images using mediastinum and bone settings. An automated algorithm segmented regions of interest and estimated stone size using pixel HUs. Mean absolute error (MAE) was assessed for the accuracy of each measurement method against known phantom sizes. For the mediastinum setting, MAEs for 100, 1000, and 3000 HU stone phantoms were 1.05 mm ± 0.06, 1.01 mm ± 0.06, and 2.38 mm ± 0.17, respectively. For the bone setting, MAEs were 0.98 mm ± 0.07, 0.55 mm ± 0.10, and 1.91 mm ± 0.06, respectively. For automated measurements, MAEs were 1.16 mm, 0.21 mm, and 2.10 mm, respectively. Participant-to-participant variability was observed across all measurement settings, regardless of the stone density or window used. For stone size measurements on CT images, the bone setting provided more accurate results than the mediastinum setting. Automated measurement methods, which estimate stone size by outlining its edges, were more accurate than manual measurements for 1000 HU stones, the most common stone density. However, for stones with densities above or below 1000 HU, the accuracy of the automated method may decrease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11991932/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01708-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01708-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of actual and automated CT measurements of urinary stone size: a phantom study.
Urinary stone size is key in determining treatment. Although computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used for diagnosing urinary stones, measurements of stone size obtained from CT images may be inaccurate compared to actual size. Twenty-four urinary stone phantoms were 3D printed at three densities (100, 1000, and 3000 Hounsfield units [HU]) and eight sizes. CT images of the phantoms were taken. Nineteen radiologists and 33 emergency physicians from two institutions measured stone sizes on CT images using mediastinum and bone settings. An automated algorithm segmented regions of interest and estimated stone size using pixel HUs. Mean absolute error (MAE) was assessed for the accuracy of each measurement method against known phantom sizes. For the mediastinum setting, MAEs for 100, 1000, and 3000 HU stone phantoms were 1.05 mm ± 0.06, 1.01 mm ± 0.06, and 2.38 mm ± 0.17, respectively. For the bone setting, MAEs were 0.98 mm ± 0.07, 0.55 mm ± 0.10, and 1.91 mm ± 0.06, respectively. For automated measurements, MAEs were 1.16 mm, 0.21 mm, and 2.10 mm, respectively. Participant-to-participant variability was observed across all measurement settings, regardless of the stone density or window used. For stone size measurements on CT images, the bone setting provided more accurate results than the mediastinum setting. Automated measurement methods, which estimate stone size by outlining its edges, were more accurate than manual measurements for 1000 HU stones, the most common stone density. However, for stones with densities above or below 1000 HU, the accuracy of the automated method may decrease.
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society
The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field.
Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.