eprintid: 10177530
rev_number: 8
eprint_status: archive
userid: 699
dir: disk0/10/17/75/30
datestamp: 2023-09-26 10:56:43
lastmod: 2023-09-26 10:57:38
status_changed: 2023-09-26 10:56:43
type: article
metadata_visibility: show
sword_depositor: 699
creators_name: Azimbagirad, Mehran
creators_name: Grillo, Felipe Wilker
creators_name: Hadadian, Yaser
creators_name: Carneiro, Antonio Adilton Oliveira
creators_name: Murta, Luiz Otavio
title: Biomimetic phantom with anatomical accuracy for evaluating brain volumetric measurements with magnetic resonance imaging
ispublished: pub
divisions: UCL
divisions: B04
divisions: C05
divisions: F48
keywords: physical phantom; brain volume measurements; magnetic resonance imaging; evaluation method
note: This version is the version of record. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions.
abstract: Purpose: Brain image volumetric measurements (BVM) methods have been used to quantify brain tissue volumes using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when investigating abnormalities. Although BVM methods are widely used, they need to be evaluated to quantify their reliability. Currently, the gold-standard reference to evaluate a BVM is usually manual labeling measurement. Manual volume labeling is a time-consuming and expensive task, but the confidence level ascribed to this method is not absolute. We describe and evaluate a biomimetic brain phantom as an alternative for the manual validation of BVM.

Methods: We printed a three-dimensional (3D) brain mold using an MRI of a three-year-old boy diagnosed with Sturge-Weber syndrome. Then we prepared three different mixtures of styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene gel and paraffin to mimic white matter (WM), gray matter (GM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The mold was filled by these three mixtures with known volumes. We scanned the brain phantom using two MRI scanners, 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Our suggestion is a new challenging model to evaluate the BVM which includes the measured volumes of the phantom compartments and its MRI. We investigated the performance of an automatic BVM, i.e., the expectation–maximization (EM) method, to estimate its accuracy in BVM.

Results: The automatic BVM results using the EM method showed a relative error (regarding the phantom volume) of 0.08, 0.03, and 0.13 (±0.03 uncertainty) percentages of the GM, CSF, and WM volume, respectively, which was in good agreement with the results reported using manual segmentation.

Conclusions: The phantom can be a potential quantifier for a wide range of segmentation methods.
date: 2021-01-29
date_type: published
publisher: SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
official_url: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.8.1.013503
oa_status: green
full_text_type: pub
language: eng
primo: open
primo_central: open_green
verified: verified_manual
elements_id: 2090959
doi: 10.1117/1.jmi.8.1.013503
medium: Print-Electronic
lyricists_name: Azimbagirad, Mehran
lyricists_id: MAZIM01
actors_name: Azimbagirad, Mehran
actors_id: MAZIM01
actors_role: owner
full_text_status: public
publication: Journal of medical imaging
volume: 8
number: 1
article_number: 013503
issn: 2329-4302
citation:        Azimbagirad, Mehran;    Grillo, Felipe Wilker;    Hadadian, Yaser;    Carneiro, Antonio Adilton Oliveira;    Murta, Luiz Otavio;      (2021)    Biomimetic phantom with anatomical accuracy for evaluating brain volumetric measurements with magnetic resonance imaging.                   Journal of medical imaging , 8  (1)    , Article 013503.  10.1117/1.jmi.8.1.013503 <https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.8.1.013503>.       Green open access   
 
document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10177530/1/013503_1.pdf