1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
A comparative study of automatic thresholding approaches for 3D x-ray microtomography of trabecular bone
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4817235
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/9/10.1118/1.4817235
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/9/10.1118/1.4817235

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Block diagram of the proposed methodology for segmenting 3D CT of trabecular bone.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Voxel array with 26-connectivity.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Mutual information between the filtered image (from 3D CT data), , and its morphological opening, γ, and top-hat transform, WTH, for different structuring element sizes.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Algorithm for selecting automatically the size of the structuring element for the top-hat operator.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Single slice from 3D CT data: (a) Ray aliasing (white arrow) and ring artifacts (black arrow). (b) Image integration. (c) Anisotropic diffusion filtering. (d) Contrast enhancement. The outcomes of the thresholding techniques (e) clustering, (f) maximum entropy, (g) moment preservation, and (h) concavity-based applied to the preprocessed image in (d).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Block diagram of the experimental setup.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Setup of 3D x-ray microtomography imaging.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Example of a single slice from 3D CT data acquired from rat vertebra. The marked region-of-interest (ROI) contains a notably concentration of trabeculae bone.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Distribution of NPRI values reached by segmentation approaches. The asterisk “*” indicates statistically difference ( < 0.05) between two algorithms.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

3D reconstructions from CT data VOIs (regarding 100 slices) segmented by (a) clustering, (b) moments, (c) concavity, (d) entropy approaches, and (e)−(g) the corresponding ground-truth segmentations.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

(a) Bone volume segmented with moment preservation method. (b) Volumetric tetrahedral mesh generated with the Marching Cubes method from (a).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Parameters of the CT image system acquisition.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

NPRI analysis of thresholding algorithms obtained from 38 samples.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Multiple comparisons using Games-Howell test ( = 0.05) for determining differences in NPRI values between thresholding algorithms.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

3D morphometric indices of 38 bone samples.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Multiple comparisons for determining differences in BV/TV values.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/9/10.1118/1.4817235
2013-08-06
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: A comparative study of automatic thresholding approaches for 3D x-ray microtomography of trabecular bone
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/9/10.1118/1.4817235
10.1118/1.4817235
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM