Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1059–1077 | Cite as

CAUDLES-EF: Carotid Automated Ultrasound Double Line Extraction System Using Edge Flow

  • Filippo Molinari
  • Kristen M. Meiburger
  • Guang Zeng
  • Andrew Nicolaides
  • Jasjit S. Suri
Article

Abstract

The evaluation of the carotid artery wall is essential for the diagnosis of cardiovascular pathologies or for the assessment of a patient’s cardiovascular risk. This paper presents a completely user-independent algorithm, which automatically extracts the far double line (lumen–intima and media–adventitia) in the carotid artery using an Edge Flow technique based on directional probability maps using the attributes of intensity and texture. Specifically, the algorithm traces the boundaries between the lumen and intima layer (line one) and between the media and adventitia layer (line two). The Carotid Automated Ultrasound Double Line Extraction System based on Edge-Flow (CAUDLES-EF) is characterized and validated by comparing the output of the algorithm with the manual tracing boundaries carried out by three experts. We also benchmark our new technique with the two other completely automatic techniques (CALEXia and CULEXsa) we previously published. Our multi-institutional database consisted of 300 longitudinal B-mode carotid images with normal and pathologic arteries. We compared our current new method with previous methods, and showed the mean and standard deviation for the three methods: CALEXia, CULEXsa, and CAUDLES-EF as 0.134 ± 0.088, 0.074 ± 0.092, and 0.043 ± 0.097 mm, respectively. Our IMT was slightly underestimated with respect to the ground truth IMT, but showed a uniform behavior over the entire database. Regarding the Figure of Merit (FoM), CALEXia and CULEXsa showed the values of 84.7% and 91.5%, respectively, while our new approach, CAUDLES-EF, performed the best at 94.8%, showing a good improvement compared to previous methods.

Keywords

Carotid artery Ultrasound Multiresolution Edge flow Localization Intima–media thickness Hausdorff distance Polyline distance Segmentation Automated measurement Carotid imaging Intima-media thickness measurement Edge-flow operator 

References

  1. 1.
    Amato M, et al: Carotid intima-media thickness by B-mode ultrasound as surrogate of coronary atherosclerosis: correlation with quantitative coronary angiography and coronary intravascular ultrasound findings. European Heart Journal 28(17):2094–101, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosvall M, et al: Incidence of stroke is related to carotid IMT even in the absence of plaque. Atherosclerosis 179(2):325–31, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saba, L. and G. Mallarini, A comparison between NASCET and ECST methods in the study of carotids Evaluation using Multi-Detector-Row CT angiography. Eur J Radiol, 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Touboul PJ, et al: Mannheim carotid intima-media thickness consensus (2004–2006). An update on behalf of the Advisory Board of the 3 rd and 4th Watching the Risk Symposium, 13th and 15th European Stroke Conferences, Mannheim, Germany, 2004, and Brussels, Belgium, 2006. Cerebrovasc Dis 23(1):75–80, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Touboul PJ, et al: Mannheim intima-media thickness consensus. Cerebrovasc Dis 18(4):346–9, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delsanto S, et al: CULEX-completely user-independent layers extraction: ultrasonic carotid artery images segmentation. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 6:6468–71, 2005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delsanto S, et al: Characterization of a Completely User-Independent Algorithm for Carotid Artery Segmentation in 2-D Ultrasound Images. Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on 56(4):1265–1274, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Molinari F, et al: Automatic computer-based tracings (ACT) in longitudinal 2-D ultrasound images using different scanners. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology 9(4):481–505, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molinari F, Zeng G, Suri JS: An integrated approach to computer- based automated tracing and its validation for 200 common carotid arterial wall ultrasound images: A new technique. J Ultras Med 29:399–418, 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molinari F, Zeng G, Suri JS: Intima-media thickness: setting a standard for completely automated method for ultrasound. IEEE Transaction on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control 57(5):1112–1124, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhen, Y., et al. Four image interpolation techniques for ultrasound breast phantom data acquired using Fischer's full field digital mammography and ultrasound system (FFDMUS): a comparative approach. in Image Processing, 2005. ICIP 2005. IEEE International Conference on. 2005Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loizou CP, et al: Comparative evaluation of despeckle filtering in ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery. Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on 52(10):1653–1669, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loizou CP, et al: Quality evaluation of ultrasound imaging in the carotid artery based on normalization and speckle reduction filtering. Med Biol Eng Comput 44(5):414–26, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ma, W.Y. and B.S. Manjunath. Edge Flow: A Framework of Boundary Detection and Image Segmentation. in Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1997. San JuanGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suri JS, Haralick RM, Sheehan FH: Greedy algorithm for error correction in automatically produced boundaries from low contrast ventriculograms. Pattern Analysis and Applications 3(1):39–60, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Molinari
    • 1
  • Kristen M. Meiburger
    • 1
  • Guang Zeng
    • 2
  • Andrew Nicolaides
    • 3
    • 6
  • Jasjit S. Suri
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Biolab—Dipartimento di ElettronicaPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  4. 4.Global Biomedical Technologies, IncRosevilleUSA
  5. 5.(Aff.) Idaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  6. 6.Vascular Screening and Diagnostic CentreLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations