Inter-Greedy Technique for Fusion of Different Segmentation Strategies Leading to High-Performance Carotid IMT Measurement in Ultrasound Images

  • Filippo MolinariEmail author
  • Guang Zeng
  • Jasjit S. Suri


User-based estimation of intima–media thickness (IMT) of carotid arteries leads to subjectivity in its decision support systems, while being used as a cardiovascular risk marker. During automated computer-based decision support, we developed segmentation strategies that follow three main courses of our contributions: (a) signal processing approach, combined with snakes and fuzzy K-means (CULEXsa), (b) integrated approach based on seed and line detection, followed by probability-based connectivity and classification (CALEXia), and (c) morphological approach, with watershed transform and fitting (WS). These grayscale segmentation algorithms yielding carotid wall boundaries has certain bias along with their own merits. We have recently developed a fusion technique, which combines two carotid wall boundaries using ground truth (GT) as an ideal marker and is helpful in removing bias.

Here, we have extended this fusion concept by taking the merits of these multiple boundaries, the so-called Inter-Greedy (IG) approach. Further, we estimate IMT from these fused boundaries from multiple sources. Starting from the technique with the overall least system error (the snake-based one), we iteratively swapped the vertices of the profiles until we minimized its overall distance with respect to ground truth. The fusion boundary was the Inter-Greedy boundary. We used the polyline distance metric for performance evaluation and error minimization. We ran the segmentation protocol over the database of 200 carotid longitudinal B-mode ultrasound images and compared the performance of all the four techniques (CALEXia, CULEXsa, WS, and IG).

The mean error of Inter-Greedy technique yielded 0.32 ± 0.44 pixel (20.0 ± 27.5 μm) for the LI boundary (a 33.3 ± 5.6% improvement over initial best performing technique) and 0.21 ± 0.34 pixel (13.1 ± 21.3 μm) for MA boundary (a 32.3 ± 6.7% improvement). IMT measurement error for Greedy method was 0.74 ± 0.75 pixel (46.3 ± 46.9 μm), a 43.5 ± 2.4% improvement.


Ultrasound imaging Carotid artery Automated tracings Geometric features Integration Greedy method Performance evaluation Validation Benchmarking 


  1. 1.
    P. J. Touboul, M. G. Hennerici, S. Meairs et al., “Mannheim carotid intima-media thickness consensus (2004-2006). An update on behalf of the Advisory Board of the 3rd and 4th Watching the Risk Symposium, 13th and 15th European Stroke Conferences, Mannheim, Germany, 2004, and Brussels, Belgium, 2006,” Cerebrovasc Dis, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 75–80, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. J. Touboul, M. G. Hennerici, S. Meairs et al., “Mannheim intima-media thickness consensus,” Cerebrovasc Dis, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 346–9, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. M. van der Meer, M. L. Bots, A. Hofman et al., “Predictive value of noninvasive measures of atherosclerosis for incident myocardial infarction: the Rotterdam Study,” Circulation, vol. 109, no. 9, pp. 1089–94, Mar 9, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Pignoli and T. Longo, “Evaluation of atherosclerosis with B-mode ultrasound imaging,” J Nucl Med Allied Sci, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 166–73, Jul–Sep, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Delsanto, F. Molinari, P. Giustetto et al., “CULEX-completely user-independent layers extraction: ultrasonic carotid artery images segmentation,” Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 6, pp. 6468–71, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Delsanto, F. Molinari, P. Giustetto et al., “Characterization of a completely user-independent algorithm for carotid artery segmentation in 2-D ultrasound images,” IEEE Trans Instrum Meas, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1265–74, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Delsanto, F. Molinari, W. Liboni et al., “User-independent plaque characterization and accurate IMT measurement of carotid artery wall using ultrasound,” Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 1, pp. 2404–7, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Molinari, G. Zeng, and J. S. Suri, “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, vol. 29, pp. 399–418, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Molinari, G. Zeng, and J. S. Suri, “Intima-media thickness: setting a standard for completely automated method for ultrasound,” IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1112–24, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Faita, V. Gemignani, E. Bianchini et al., “Real-time measurement system for evaluation of the carotid intima-media thickness with a robust edge operator,” J Ultrasound Med, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1353–61, Sep, 2008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. H. Stein, C. E. Korcarz, M. E. Mays et al., “A semiautomated ultrasound border detection program that facilitates clinical measurement of ultrasound carotid intima-media thickness,” J Am Soc Echocardiogr, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 244–51, Mar, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Q. Liang, I. Wendelhag, J. Wikstrand et al., “A multiscale dynamic programming procedure for boundary detection in ultrasonic artery images,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 127–42, Feb, 2000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Molinari, G. Zeng, and J. S. Suri, “Carotid wall segmentation and imt measurement in longitudinal ultrasound images using morphological approach,” in International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Kyriacou, M. S. Pattichis, C. I. Christodoulou et al., “Ultrasound imaging in the analysis of carotid plaque morphology for the assessment of stroke,” Plaque imaging: pixel to molecular level, J. S. Suri, C. Yuan, D. L. Wilson et al., eds., pp. 241–75, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. P. Loizou, C. S. Pattichis, M. Pantziaris et al., “Snakes based segmentation of the common carotid artery intima media,” Med Biol Eng Comput, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 35–49, Jan, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. Molinari, S. Delsanto, P. Giustetto et al., “User-independent plaque segmentation and accurate intima-media thickness measurement of carotid artery wall using ultrasound,” Advances in diagnostic and therapeutic ultrasound imaging, J. S. Suri, C. Kathuria, R. F. Chang et al., eds., pp. 111–40, Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. J. Williams and M. Shah, “A fast algorithm for active contours and curvature estimation,” CVGIP Image Underst, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 14–26, Jan, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Masden, J. Zagzebski, J. Frank, and J. Rownd, Automated system and method for testing resolution of ultrasound scanners. 1996: US Patent 5, 574, 212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. S. Suri, R. M. Haralick, and F. H. Sheehan, “Greedy algorithm for error correction in automatically produced boundaries from low contrast ventriculograms,” Pattern Anal Appl, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 39–60, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. J. Verbeek, N. Vlassis, and B. Krose, “Efficient greedy learning of gaussian mixture models,” Neural Comput, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 469–85, Feb, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Molinari, G. Zeng, and J. S. Suri, “ Greedy technique and its validation for fusion of two segmentation paradigms leading to an accurate IMT measure in plaqued carotid arterial ultrasound,” J Vasc Ultrasound, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 63–73, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Molinari, G. Zeng, and J. Suri, Inter-Greedy Technique for Fusion of Different Segmentation Strategies Leading to High-Performance Carotid IMT Measurement in Ultrasound Images. Journal of Medical Systems: p. 1-15. (in press).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biolab, Department of ElectronicsPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations