Home > Riviste > International Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > International Angiology 2012 October;31(5) > International Angiology 2012 October;31(5):483-9





Rivista di Angiologia

Official Journal of the International Union of Angiology, the International Union of Phlebology and the Central European Vascular Forum
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,37




International Angiology 2012 October;31(5):483-9


lingua: Inglese

What is the correct distance measurement metric when measuring carotid ultrasound intimamedia thickness automatically?

Saba L. 1, Molinari F. 2, Meiburger K. M. 2, Piga M. 1, Zeng G. 3, Rajendra Achraya U. 4, Nicolaides A. 5, Suri J. S. 6, 7

1 Department of Radiology, A.U.O. Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy; 2 Biolab, Department of Electronics and Telecomunications, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy; 3 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 4 Department of ECE, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore, Singapore 5 Vascular Diagnostic Center, Nicosia, Cyprus; 6 CTO Diagnostic and Monitoring Division, AtheroPoint, LLC and Global Biomedical Technologies Inc., Roseville, USA; 7 Biomedical Engineering Department, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, USA


AIM: The aims of this study were: 1) to analyze the interobserver carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) variability using three different measurement metrics on large multi-institutional databases; 2) to evaluate the three kinds of metrics when comparing completely automated CIMT measurement (Auto Edge CIMT) to two manually derived CIMT (manual CIMT).
METHODS: Two expert sonographers manually analyzed 665 carotid B-Mode ultrasound images collected from five institutions and using four different scanners. The two readers traced the lumen-intima (LI) and media-adventitia (MA) interfaces. The manual CIMT was computed from the LI/MA tracings by using three different distance measurement metrics: the Hausdorff, the PolyLine, and the Centerline distance metrics. The LI/MA tracings of a completely automated method we previously developed were then compared to manual CIMT.
RESULTS: The average CIMT values of Readers 1 and 2 were 1.904±0.650 mm and 1.421±0.394 using Hausdorff, 0.808±0.269 mm and 0.790±0.227 mm using Polyline, and 0.762±0.266 mm and 0.782±0.228 mm using Centerline, respectively. The correlation coefficients were 0.14 (0.07-0.22) for Hausdorff, 0.77 (0.74-0.80) for Polyline, and 0.82 (0.79-0.84) for Centerline. The variation coefficients (CV) were equal to 46.4% (Hausdorff), 2.6 % (Polyline), and 14.1% (Centerline). The Auto Edge CIMT values were: 1.655±0.676 mm using Hausdorff, 0.808±0.282 mm using Polyline, and 0.776±0.275 mm using Centerline.
CONCLUSION: Centerline and Polyline yield very close results and are clinically suitable distance measurement techniques for computing the CIMT from LI/MA profiles.

inizio pagina

Publication History

Per citare questo articolo

Corresponding author e-mail