Quantification of Carotid Intraplaque Hemorrhage: Comparison between Manual Segmentation and Semi-Automatic Segmentation on Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Acquisition with Gradient-Echo Sequences [post]

Young Ju Song, Hyo Sung Kwak, Gyung Ho Chung, Seongil Jo
2019 unpublished
Purpose: Carotid intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) increases risk of territorial cerebral ischemic events, but different sequences or criteria have been used to diagnose or quantify carotid IPH. The purpose of this study was to compare manual segmentation and semi-automatic segmentation for quantification of carotid IPH on magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition with gradient-echo (MPRAGE) sequences. Methods: Forty patients with 16–79% carotid stenosis and IPH on MPRAGE sequences were
more » ... by two trained radiologists with more than five years of specialized experience in carotid plaque characterization with carotid plaque MRI. Initially, the radiologists manually viewed the IPH based on the MPRAGE sequence. IPH volume was then measured by three different semi-automatic methods, with high signal intensity 150%, 175%, and 200%, respectively, above that of adjacent muscle on the MPRAGE sequence. Agreement on measurements between manual segmentation and semi-automatic segmentation was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: There was near-perfect agreement between manual segmentation and the 150% and 175% criteria for semi-automatic segmentation in quantification of IPH volume. The ICC of each semi-automatic segmentation were as follows: 150% criteria: 0.861, 175% criteria: 0.809, 200% criteria: 0.491. The ICC value of manual vs. 150% criteria and manual vs. 175% criteria were significantly better than the manual vs. 200% criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The ICC of 150% and 175% criteria for semi-automatic segmentation are more reliable for quantification of IPH volume. Semi-automatic classification tools may be beneficial in large-scale multicenter studies by reducing image analysis time and avoiding bias between human reviewers.
doi:10.20944/preprints201910.0230.v1 fatcat:dtmeh5tnlvbklg7d6viadooalm