4 research outputs found

    Influence of the operator-defined box on the autosegmentation volume.

    No full text
    <p>The difference between the individual and average box volumes was weakly correlated to the difference between the individual and average autosegmentation volume. However, there was considerably greater spread in the box volumes (165%) than autosegmentation volumes (55%).</p

    Representative manual (yellow) and automated (green) segmentations of the T1-weighted FLASH images.

    No full text
    <p>The automated segmentations were more consistent in both a (A) a 50 µL infusion in the putamen (manual: 177/226/131/232 µL; automated: 156/154/161/154 µL) and (B) a 160 µL infusion in the thalamus (manual: 425/505/364/564 µl; automated: 402/454/522/497 µL). (C) A cross-section of the thalamus infusion along the dotted line demonstrated that the inconsistently classified pixels (gray, starred) were on the shoulder of the infusion.</p

    Comparison of manually segmented infusion volumes to autosegmented infusion volumes.

    No full text
    <p>(A) Autosegmentation (open dots) by the four operators produced consistent volumes to manual segmentation (black dots) in all fourteen test subjects. (B) Autosegmentation significantly reduced the interoperator variability (Mean ± StDev). (C) Autosegmentation variability for all studies was smaller than manual segmentation variability, so all values fell below the unity line. (D) Autosegmentation produced consistent Vd/Vi ratios to manual segmentation with lower standard deviation (Mean ± StDev).</p
    corecore