Primal/Dual Linear Programming and Statistical Atlases for Cartilage Segmentation

  • Ben Glocker
  • Nikos Komodakis
  • Nikos Paragios
  • Christian Glaser
  • Georgios Tziritas
  • Nassir Navab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4792)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a novel approach for automatic segmentation of cartilage using a statistical atlas and efficient primal/dual linear programming. To this end, a novel statistical atlas construction is considered from registered training examples. Segmentation is then solved through registration which aims at deforming the atlas such that the conditional posterior of the learned (atlas) density is maximized with respect to the image. Such a task is reformulated using a discrete set of deformations and segmentation becomes equivalent to finding the set of local deformations which optimally match the model to the image. We evaluate our method on 56 MRI data sets (28 used for the model and 28 used for evaluation) and obtain a fully automatic segmentation of patella cartilage volume with an overlap ratio of 0.84 with a sensitivity and specificity of 94.06% and 99.92%, respectively.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yelin, E.: Cost of musculoskeletal diseases: Impact of work disability and functional. J. Rheumatol. Suppl. 68, 8–11 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eckstein, F., Cicuttini, F., Raynauld, J., Waterton, J., Peterfly, C.: Magnetic resonance imaging (mri) of cartilage in knee osteoarthritis (oa): morphological assesment. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 14, 46–75 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kauffmann, C., Gravel, P., Godbout, B., Gravel, A., Beaudoin, G., Raynauld, J.P., Martel-Pelletier, J., Pelletier, J.P., de Guise, J.: Computer-aided method for quantification of cartilage thickness and volume changes using mri: validation study using a synthetic model. IEEE Biomedical Engineering 50(8), 978–988 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tamez-Pena, J., Barbu-McInnis, M., Totterman, S.: Unsupervised definition of the tibia-femoral joint regions of the human knee and its applications to cartilage analysis. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, San Diego (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang, J., Millington, S., Acton, S., Crandall, J., Hurwitz, S.: Surface extraction and thickness measurement of the articular cartilage from mr images using directional gradient vector flow snakes. IEEE Biomedical Engineering 53(5), 896–907 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Folkesson, J., Dam, E., Olsen, O.F., Pettersen, P., Christiansen, C.: Automatic segmentation of the articular cartilage in knee mri using a hierarchical multi-class classification scheme. In: Duncan, J.S., Gerig, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3749, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dam, E., Folkesson, J., Pettersen, P., Christiansen, C.: Semi-automatic knee cartilage segmentation. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, San Diego (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grau, V., Mewes, A., Alcaniz, M., Kikinis, R., Warfield, S.: Improved watershed transform for medical image segmentation using prior information. IEEE Medical Imaging 23(4), 447–458 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheong, J., Suter, D., Cicuttini, F.: Development of semi-automatic segmentation methods for measuring tibial cartilage volume. In: Digital Image Computing: Technqiues and Applications, DICTA 2005. Proceedings, pp. 307–314 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fripp, J., Crozier, S., Warfield, S., Ourselin, S.: Automatic segmentation of the bone and extraction of the bone-cartilage interface from magnetic resonance images of the knee. Physics in Medicine and Biology (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rousson, M., Paragios, N.: Prior knowledge, level set representations and visual grouping. International Journal of Computer Vision (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tikhonov, A.: Ill-posed problems in natural sciences, Coronet (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schnabel, J.A., Rueckert, D., Quist, M., Blackall, J.M., Castellano-Smith, A.D., Hartkens, T., Penney, G.P., Hall, W.A., Liu, H., Truwit, C.L., Gerritsen, F.A., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.J.: A generic framework for non-rigid registration based on non-uniform multi-level free-form deformations. In: Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glocker, B., Komodakis, N., Paragios, N., Tziritas, G., Navab, N.: Inter and intra-modal deformable registration: Continuous deformations meet efficient optimal linear programming. In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Kerkrade, Netherlands (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Komodakis, N., Tziritas, G., Paragios, N.: Fast, approximately optimal solutions for single and dynamic mrfs. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerig, G., Jomier, M., Chakos, M.: Valmet: A new validation tool for assessing and improving 3d object segmentations. In: Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheong, J., Faggian, N., Langs, G., Suter, D., Cicuttini, F.: A comparison of model-based methods for knee cartilage segmentation. In: Computer Vision Theory and Applications (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Glocker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nikos Komodakis
    • 2
    • 4
  • Nikos Paragios
    • 2
  • Christian Glaser
    • 3
  • Georgios Tziritas
    • 4
  • Nassir Navab
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), Technische Universität München 
  2. 2.GALEN Group, Laboratoire de Mathématiques Appliquées aux Systèmes, Ecole Centrale de Paris 
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 
  4. 4.Computer Science Department, University of Crete 

Personalised recommendations