2001
DOI: 10.1109/42.929612
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

LV volume quantification via spatiotemporal analysis of real-time 3-D echocardiography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
71
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
71
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because of characteristic US artefacts, such as speckle and shadowing, intensity inhomogeneities, low contrast and ill-defined boundaries, simple image feature-based thresholding or edge-detection methods are ineffective. Successful segmentation algorithms reported for US images are based on morphologic operations (Czerwinski et al 1999;Gong et al 2004), neural networks (Binder et al 1999), wavelet analysis (Angelini et al 2001) and Markov random fields (Haas et al 2000;Xiao et al 2002;Brusseau et al 2004;Gong et al 2004). These incorporate preprocessing for speckle reduction (e.g., the "stick" method) (Czerwinski et al 1999), anisotropic diffusion (Perona and Malik 1990) and intensity corrections (Xiao et al 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of characteristic US artefacts, such as speckle and shadowing, intensity inhomogeneities, low contrast and ill-defined boundaries, simple image feature-based thresholding or edge-detection methods are ineffective. Successful segmentation algorithms reported for US images are based on morphologic operations (Czerwinski et al 1999;Gong et al 2004), neural networks (Binder et al 1999), wavelet analysis (Angelini et al 2001) and Markov random fields (Haas et al 2000;Xiao et al 2002;Brusseau et al 2004;Gong et al 2004). These incorporate preprocessing for speckle reduction (e.g., the "stick" method) (Czerwinski et al 1999), anisotropic diffusion (Perona and Malik 1990) and intensity corrections (Xiao et al 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most ultrasound segmentation algorithms are evaluated by comparison with manual segmentation [4][5][6][7]. The algorithm is considered validated if its performance measures are within the variation range of manual segmentation results.…”
Section: Evaluating and Explaining Accuracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model-based approaches are more efficient when dealing with echocardiographic images due to the high signal-to-noise ratio. One can also separate the techniques that perform filtering/segmentation in the polar [7] or in the raw space [1]. Markov random fields formulations [7], active shape and appearance models [4,9], snakes [3], deformable models and templates [8] and level set techniques [1] are well established techniques considered to address the segmentation of the left ventricle in echocardiographic images.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Segmentation techniques for ultrasonic images consist of model-free [7,1] and model-based approaches [3,9]. Model-free techniques can better capture the variations of the endocardium while suffering from not being able to deal with the corrupted data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%