AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Wijk, C.
Right arrow Articles by Vos, F. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Wijk, C.
Right arrow Articles by Vos, F. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

Protrusion Method for Automated Estimation of Polyp Size on CT Colonography

C. van Wijk1, J. Florie2, C. Y. Nio2, E. Dekker3, A. H. de Vries2, H. W. Venema4, L. J. van Vliet1, J. Stoker2 and F. M. Vos1,2

1 Department of Imaging Science and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, Delft, Zuid-Holland, 2628 CJ, The Netherlands.
2 Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3 Department of Medical Physics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.


Figure 1
View larger version (98K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 —Phantom colon with plasticine objects. Photograph shows two halves of cylinder inserted into tight-fit second cylinder before scanning.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2 —Diagram shows cross section of idealized polyp with deformed surface for estimation of protrusion.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3A —Observer performance on CT with respect to reference standard. Bland-Altman plots show data for phantom (A) and for true polyps (B).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3B —Observer performance on CT with respect to reference standard. Bland-Altman plots show data for phantom (A) and for true polyps (B).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4A —Intraobserver and interobserver variability of 2D and 3D measurements. Bland-Altman plots show intraobserver variability of two repeated measurements of same phantom object (A) and of same true polyp (B).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4B —Intraobserver and interobserver variability of 2D and 3D measurements. Bland-Altman plots show intraobserver variability of two repeated measurements of same phantom object (A) and of same true polyp (B).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4C —Intraobserver and interobserver variability of 2D and 3D measurements. Bland-Altman plots show interobserver variability of corresponding measurements of phantom object (C) and of true polyp (D).

 

Figure 8
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4D —Intraobserver and interobserver variability of 2D and 3D measurements. Bland-Altman plots show interobserver variability of corresponding measurements of phantom object (C) and of true polyp (D).

 

Figure 9
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 5 —Bland-Altman plot shows measurement variability due to change in orientation of phantom in scanner for automated method and manual measurement by both observers.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 6 —Bland-Altman plot shows measurement variability in phantom data due to differences in scanner anisotropy for automated method and manual measurements by both observers.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.