论文部分内容阅读
[目标]:研究不同和相同读片人对息肉直径进行体外自动测量时所得结果的一致性。[方法]:用16排CT扫描两个模型(QRM和Whiting模型),两个模型都包含有直径和体积已知的模拟息肉。两位读片人用三种方法来估计息肉的直径:软件测量(手工)、手工边界识别(半自动)及自动软件分割(全自动)。[结果]:对同一读片人,当使用全自动方法时,95%一致性极限范围最小(QRM范围:0.39mm～0.48mm;Whiting范围:0.24mm～0mm)。手工估计测量的极限范围大约比全自动方法要大10倍(QRM范围:3.57mm～3.21mm,Whiting范围:3.2mm～2.02mm)。全自动方法对体积的估计范围最小(范围:24.2mm3～24.1mm3;而半自动测量的范围为97.9mm3～102.9mm3)。对不同读片人,当使用全自动方法时,测得直径的一致性范围最小(QRM范围:0.12mm;Whiting范围:0.16mm),而使用手工方法的一致性范围大约是全自动方法的18倍(QRM范围:2.87mm;Whiting范围:2.18mm)。[结论]:通过全自动方法来测量息肉直径和体积在技术上是可行的,可使不同和相同读片人的测量结果实现更高的一致性。
[Objectives]: To study the consistency of results obtained from in vitro measurements of polyp diameters by different and identical readers. [Method]: Two models (QRM and Whiting model) were scanned with 16-slice CT. Both models included simulated polyps with known diameter and volume. The two readers used three methods to estimate the diameter of polyps: software measurement (manual), manual boundary recognition (semi-automatic) and automatic software segmentation (fully automatic). [Results] The 95% consistency limit range was the smallest for the same reader (QRM range: 0.39mm ~ 0.48mm; Whiting range: 0.24mm ~ 0mm) when using the fully automatic method. The manual measurement limit is approximately 10 times larger than the fully automatic method (QRM range: 3.57mm ~ 3.21mm, Whiting range: 3.2mm ~ 2.02mm). The fully automated method has the smallest estimated volume range (range: 24.2 mm3 to 24.1 mm3; and the semi-automatic measurement ranges from 97.9 mm3 to 102.9 mm3). For different readers, the smallest consistent range of diameters (QRM range: 0.12 mm; Whiting range: 0.16 mm) was obtained when the fully automatic method was used, while the consistency range using the manual method was approximately 18% for the fully automatic method Fold (QRM range: 2.87 mm; Whiting range: 2.18 mm). CONCLUSIONS: It is technically feasible to measure the polyp diameter and volume by a fully automated method, allowing for greater consistency among different and identical readers.