Cited by 4Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesRetinal Imaging and AnalysisUltrasound Imaging and Elastography

Standardization of blood flow measurements by automated vascular analysis from power Doppler ultrasound scan

Open access
Yin, Yi, Looney, Pádraig, Collins, Sally L.·2020·Medical Imaging 2020: Computer-Aided Diagnosis

Abstract

Power Doppler ultrasound imaging provides a non-invasive method to explore tissue vascularity in real-time. It has farreaching clinical utility, for example to assess the perfusion of organs such as the placenta. In this study, a fully automated method was proposed to standardize the power Doppler signals in the placental bed to estimate the perfusion by a technique known as fractional moving blood volume (FMBV). The uterine vasculature was extracted by a region growing algorithm from 3D power Doppler scan and further localized based on the placenta segmentation obtained by a multi-class fully Convolution Neural Network (CNN). The largest vessel close to the volume of interest (VOI) in placenta was identified within which the average power Doppler signal was used as a standardization value to correct the signal attenuation in placenta bed to estimate the FMBV measurement. This is the first successful attempt to automatically identify individual blood vessel segments from a complex uterine vascular plexus. The proposed method was performed in twenty 3D power Doppler scans of first trimester placenta with promising results. The mean ± STD FMBV value was 21.35% ± 9.43%. With further analysis and evaluation in large dataset, the proposed method will serve as an efficient tool for assessing the blood perfusion in placenta bed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/12.2549349

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yin, Y., Looney, P., & Collins, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
Venue
Medical Imaging 2020: Computer-Aided Diagnosis
Publisher
SPIE
Published
2020-03-16
Volume
11314
Pages
154
OpenAlex
W3011212401
Cited by
4
References
6
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.23
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SPIE Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U01HD087209)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
Keywords
power Doppler, placental perfusion, fractional moving blood volume, region growing algorithm, placenta segmentation, convolutional neural networks, 3D ultrasound, first trimester

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review