2014
DOI: 10.3233/bme-141138
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improve accuracy for automatic acetabulum segmentation in CT images

Abstract: Separation of the femur head and acetabulum is one of main difficulties in the diseased hip joint due to deformed shapes and extreme narrowness of the joint space. To improve the segmentation accuracy is the key point of existing automatic or semi-automatic segmentation methods. In this paper, we propose a new method to improve the accuracy of the segmented acetabulum using surface fitting techniques, which essentially consists of three parts: (1) design a surface iterative process to obtain an optimization su… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 26 publications
(58 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These methods can be roughly categorized as supervised or unsupervised approaches based on prior knowledge. Unsupervised approaches that do not use prior knowledge can be further categorized as region growing [24], thresholding [25], [26], graph-cut [27], surface fitting [28], and harmonic field approaches [29]. Supervised approaches using prior knowledge can be further categorized as statistical shape models (SSM) [30]- [32], active shape models (ASM) [33], atlas-based [34], [35], and patch-based approaches [36].…”
Section: Related Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods can be roughly categorized as supervised or unsupervised approaches based on prior knowledge. Unsupervised approaches that do not use prior knowledge can be further categorized as region growing [24], thresholding [25], [26], graph-cut [27], surface fitting [28], and harmonic field approaches [29]. Supervised approaches using prior knowledge can be further categorized as statistical shape models (SSM) [30]- [32], active shape models (ASM) [33], atlas-based [34], [35], and patch-based approaches [36].…”
Section: Related Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%