2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105333
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Carotid Ultrasound Boundary Study (CUBS): Technical considerations on an open multi-center analysis of computerized measurement systems for intima-media thickness measurement on common carotid artery longitudinal B-mode ultrasound scans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These errors were compared with the inter-and intra-observer variabilities, A2 vs. A1 and A1' vs. A1, respectively. Table I summarizes the segmentation errors separately calculated for images from the CUBS 1 and CUBS 2 databases, which allows a comparison with other methods evaluated on these databases in previous studies [5], [6]. Thus, the previous benchmark on the CUBS 1 database was a MAD value on IMT equal to 114 ± 117 µm, while on the CUBS 2 database the best conventional method achieved 139 ± 119 µm and another Unet-based method obtained 178 ± 120 µm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These errors were compared with the inter-and intra-observer variabilities, A2 vs. A1 and A1' vs. A1, respectively. Table I summarizes the segmentation errors separately calculated for images from the CUBS 1 and CUBS 2 databases, which allows a comparison with other methods evaluated on these databases in previous studies [5], [6]. Thus, the previous benchmark on the CUBS 1 database was a MAD value on IMT equal to 114 ± 117 µm, while on the CUBS 2 database the best conventional method achieved 139 ± 119 µm and another Unet-based method obtained 178 ± 120 µm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The latter achieved errors smaller than the interobserver variability, both in terms of estimated thickness and contour location. Compared to the methods already evaluated on the same data [5], [6], caroSegDeep established a new benchmark. As the proposed method is based on supervised learning, it has the potential to increase its performance by using larger and more diverse data for training.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two previously published and freely downloadable datasets [6], [8], were used as the training and validation sets. The resulting dataset consisted of 2576 B-mode longitudinal ultrasound images of the carotid artery.…”
Section: Dataset Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a subset (n = 769) of in vivo images from the CUBS 1 [10] and CUBS 2 [9] databases. As the images also contain text and other graphical inlays, we clipped them out and cropped each sample down to only a region of interest (ROI).…”
Section: Gan-based Post Processing Phase a Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%