Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 229–235 | Cite as

Voxel-based computational models of real human anatomy: a review

Review

Abstract

Computational models of human anatomy are mathematical representations of human anatomy designed to be used in dosimetry calculations. They have been used in dosimetry calculations for radiography, radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, radiation protection and to investigate the effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields. Tomographic medical imaging techniques have allowed the construction of digital three-dimensional computational models based on the actual anatomy of individual humans. These are called voxel models, tomographic models or phantoms. Their usefulness lies in their faithful representation of human anatomy and the flexibility they afford by being able to be scaled in size to match the required human dimensions. Segmenting medical images in order to make voxel models is very time-consuming so semi-automatic segmentation techniques are being developed. Some 21 whole or partial body models currently exist and more are being prepared. These models are listed and discussed.

References

  1. 1.
    ICRU (1989) Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Report 44. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ICRU (1992) Report 46. Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ICRP (2002) Publication 89. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. Annals of the ICRP 32. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zankl M (1993) Computational models employed for dose assessment in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 49:339–344Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher HL, Snyder WS (1966) Annual progress report for period ending July 31 1966, Health Physics Division. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hwang JML, Shoup RL, Poston JW (1976) Mathematical description of a one- and five-year-old child for use in dosimetry calculations. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen W-L, Poston JW, Warner GG (1978) An evaluation of the distribution of absorbed dose in child phantoms exposed to diagnostic medical X rays. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cristy M (1980) Mathematical phantoms representing children of various ages for use in estimates of internal dose. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Snyder WS, Ford MR, Warner GG, Fisher HL (1969) Estimates of absorbed fractions for monoenergetic photon sources uniformly distributed in various organs of a heterogeneous phantom. Medical Internal Radiation Dose Committee (MIRD) Pamphlet No. 5. J Nucl Med 10Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snyder WS, Ford MR, Warner GG (1974) Estimates of absorbed fractions for monoenergetic photon sources uniformly distributed in various organs of a heterogeneous phantom; revision of Medical Internal Radiation Dose Committee (MIRD) Pamphlet No. 5. Society of Nuclear Medicine, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valentin J (ed) (1975) Reference man: anatomical, physiological and metabolic characteristics. ICRP publication 23. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ICRP (1994) Publication 66. Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. Annals of the ICRP 24. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Veit R, Zankl M, Petoussi N, Mannweiler E, Williams G, Drexler G (1989) Tomographic anthropomorphic models. Part I. Construction technique and description of models of an 8 week old baby and a 7 year old child. Report. GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, NeuherbergGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones DG (1997) A realistic anthropomorphic phantom for calculating organ doses arising from external photon irradiation. Radiat Prot Dosim 72:21–29Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ICRU (1992) Report 48. Phantoms and computational models in therapy, diagnosis and protection. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibbs SJ, Pujol A, Chen T, Malcolm AW, James AE (1984) Patient risk from interproximal radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 58:347–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fill U, Zankl M, Petoussi-Henss N, Siebert M, Regulla D (2003) Adult female voxel models of different stature and photon conversion coefficients for radiation protection. Health Phys (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zankl M, Veit R, Williams G, Schneider K, Fendel H, Petoussi N, Drexler G (1988) The construction of computer tomographic phantoms and their application in radiology and radiation protection. Radiat Environ Biophys 27:153–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caon M, Bibbo G, Pattison J (2000) Monte Carlo calculated effective dose to teenage girls from CT examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim 90:445–448Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saito K, Wittmann A, Koga S, Ida Y, Kamei T, Funabiki J, Zankl M (2001) Construction of a computed tomographic phantom for a Japanese male adult and dose calculation system. Radiat Environ Biophys 40:69–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stanton R, Pazik F, Nipper J, Williams J, Bolch WE (2003) A comparison of newborn stylized and tomographic models for dose assessment in pediatric radiology. Phys Med Biol 48:805–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chao TC, Bozkurt A, Xu XG (2001) Conversion coefficients based on the VIP-man anatomical model and EGS4-VLSI code for external monoenergetic photons from 10 keV to 10 MeV. Health Phys 81:163–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zankl M, Fill U, Petoussi-Henss N, Regulla D (2002) Organ dose conversion coefficients for external photon irradiation of male and female voxel models. Phys Med Biol 47:2367–2385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kramer R, Vieira JW, Khoury HJ, Lima FRA, Fuelle D (2003) All about MAX: a male adult voxel phantom for Monte Carlo calculations in radiation protection dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 48:1239–1262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones DG (1998) A realistic anthropomorphic phantom for calculating specific absorbed fractions of energy deposited from internal gamma emitters. Radiat Prot Dosim 79:411–414Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petoussi-Henss N, Zankl M (1998) Voxel anthropomorphic models as a tool for internal dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosim 79:415–418Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chao TC, Xu XG (2001) The calculation of specific absorbed fractions from the image-based VIP-man body model and EGS4-VLSI Monte Carlo code for internal electron emitters. Phys Med Biol 46:901–929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stabin MG, Yoriyaz H (2002) Photon specific absorbed fractions calculated in the trunk of an adult male voxel-based phantom. Health Phys 82:21–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zankl M, Petoussi-Henss N, Fill U, Regulla D (2003) The application of voxel phantoms to the internal dosimetry of radionuclides. Radiat Prot Dosim 105:539–548Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dimbylow PJ (1997) FDTD calculations of the whole-body averaged SAR in an anatomically realistic voxel model of the human body from 1 MHz to 1 GHz. Phys Med Biol 42:479–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dimbylow PJ (2002) Fine resolution calculations of SAR in the human body for frequencies up to 3 GHz. Phys Med Biol 47:2835–2846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nagaoka T, Watanabe S, Sakurai K, Kuneida E, Watanabe S, Taki M, Yamanka Y (2004) Development of realistic high resolution whole-body voxel models of Japanese adult male and female of average height and weight, and application of models to radio-frequency electromagnetic-field dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 49:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dimbylow PJ (1998) Induced current densities from low-frequency magnetic fields in a 2 mm resolution, anatomically realistic model of the body. Phys Med Biol 43:221–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neal AJ, Sivewright G, Bentley R (1994) Evaluation of a region growing algorithm for segmenting pelvic computed tomography images during radiotherapy planning. Br J Radiother 67:392–395Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xu XG, Chao TC, Bozkurt A (2000) VIP-MAN: an image based whole-body adult male model constructed from color photographs of the Visible Human Project for multi-particle Monte Carlo calculations. Health Phys 78:476–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Park JS, Chung MS, Kim JY, Park HS (2002) Visible Korean human: another trial for making serially sectioned images. Published electronically, accessed September 2003http://vkh.ajou.ac.kr/articles/IEEE%20transcation%20on%20med%20img.pdf
  37. 37.
    Lee C, Lee J (2003) The Korean reference adult male voxel model “KRman” segmented from whole-body MR data and dose conversion coefficients (abstract only). Health Phys 84 [Suppl]:S163Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nipper JC, Williams JL, Bolch WE (2002) Creation of two tomographic voxel models of paediatric patients in the first year of life. Phys Med Biol 47:3143–3164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Funabiki J, Terabe M, Zankl M, Koga S, Saito K (2000) An EGS4 user code with voxel geometry and a voxel phantom generating system. In: Hirayama, H, Namito Y, Ban S (eds) Proceedings of Second International Workshop on EGS, 8–12 August 2000, High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation (KEK), Tsukuba, Japan, pp 59–63Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hohne KH, Hanson WA (1992) Interactive 3D segmentation of MRI and CT volumes using morphological operations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16:285–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Caon M, Mohyla J (2001) Automating the segmentation of medical images for the production of voxel tomographic computational models. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 24:166–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zankl M, Wittmann A (2001) The adult male voxel model “Golem” segmented from whole-body CT patient data. Radiat Environ Biophys 40:153–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huh C, Bolch WE (2003) A review of US anthropometric reference data (1971–2000) with comparisons to both stylized and tomographic anatomic models. Phys Med Biol 48:3411–3429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Veit R, Zankl M (1992) Influence of patient size on organ doses in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 43:241–243Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zankl M, Panzer W, Herrmann C (2000) Calculation of patient doses using a human voxel phantom of variable diameter. Radiat Prot Dosim 90:155–158Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    ICRP (1991) Publication 60. The 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP 21. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rajon DA, Patton PW, Shah AP, Watchman CJ, Bolch WE (2002) Surface area overestimation within 3D digital images and its consequences for skeletal dosimetry. Med Phys 29:682–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Veit R, Panzer W, Zankl M, Scheurer C (1992) Vergleich berechneter und gemessener Dosen an einem anthropomorphen Phantom. Z Med Phys 2:123–126Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zubal G, Harrell C, Smith E, Ratner Z, Gindi G, Hoffer P (1994) Computerised three-dimensional segmented human anatomy. Med Phys 21:299–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zubal G, Harrel C (1992) Voxel based Monte Carlo calculations of nuclear medicine images and applied variance reduction techniques. Image Vision Comput 10:342–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Caon M, Bibbo G, Pattison J (1999) An EGS4-ready tomographic computational model of a fourteen year-old female torso for calculating organ doses from CT examinations. Phys Med Biol 44:2213–2225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Petoussi-Henss N, Zankl M, Fill U, Regulla D (2002) The GSF family of voxel phantoms. Phys Med Biol 47:89–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lee C, Bolch WE (2003) Construction of a tomographic computational model of a 9-mo-old and its Monte Carlo calculation time comparison between the MCNP4C and MCNPX codes (abstract). Health Phys 84 [Suppl]:S259Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shi CY, Xu XG, Kim CH, Ogden KM, Huda W, Stabin W (2003) Development of a pregnant woman model from CT data. Health Phys 84 [Suppl]:S177Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Nursing and Midwifery, Sturt BuildingFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations