» Articles » PMID: 12704777

PUBS: Pulsatility-based Segmentation of Lumens Conducting Non-steady Flow

Overview
Journal Magn Reson Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Radiology
Date 2003 Apr 22
PMID 12704777
Citations 30
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Dynamic velocity-encoded phase-contrast MRI (PC-MRI) techniques are being used increasingly to quantify pulsatile flows for a variety of clinical applications. Studies suggest that the reliability of flow quantitation with PC-MRI appears to be dominated by the consistency in the delineation of the lumen boundary. An automated method that utilizes both spatial and temporal information has been developed for improved accuracy and reproducibility. The method's accuracy was evaluated using a flow phantom with 8- and 5-mm-diameter lumens at two different flow rates. The reproducibility of the method was further evaluated with arterial, venous, and cerebrospinal fluid flow data from human subjects. The results were compared with measurements obtained manually by observers of different skill levels. Measurement values obtained manually were consistently smaller than those obtained with the pulsatility-based segmentation (PUBS) method. For the 8-mm lumen, significant improvements in measurement accuracy were obtained. Average lumen area measurement errors of about 18% for the high and low flows, obtained manually by a skilled observer, were reduced to 2.9% and 4.8%, respectively. For the 5-mm lumen, the skilled observer underestimated the lumen area by 13%, while the PUBS method overestimated the lumen area by 28%. Overestimated lumen area measurements for the smaller lumen are attributed to the partial-volume effect. There was significantly less measurement variability with the PUBS method. An average fourfold reduction in interobserver measurement variability was obtained with the new method.

Citing Articles

Non-invasive assessment of intracranial compliance in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: an MRI-ICP study.

Sassani M, Mitchell J, Yiangou A, Davies N, Sawlani V, Mollan S Eye (Lond). 2025; .

PMID: 39856425 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03547-7.


Decoding pulsatile patterns of cerebrospinal fluid dynamics through enhancing interpretability in machine learning.

Keles A, Ozisik P, Algin O, Celebi F, Bendechache M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):17854.

PMID: 39090141 PMC: 11294568. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-67928-4.


Automatic 4D Flow MRI Segmentation Using the Standardized Difference of Means Velocity.

Rothenberger S, Patel N, Zhang J, Schnell S, Craig B, Ansari S IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2023; 42(8):2360-2373.

PMID: 37028010 PMC: 10474251. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2023.3251734.


Decreased Craniocervical CSF Flow in Patients with Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: A Pilot Study.

Stocklein S, Brandlhuber M, Lause S, Pomschar A, Jahn K, Schniepp R AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2022; 43(2):230-237.

PMID: 34992125 PMC: 8985674. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7385.


Measuring Aqueduct of Sylvius Cerebrospinal Fluid Flow in Multiple Sclerosis Using Different Software.

Lagana M, Jakimovski D, Bergsland N, Dwyer M, Baglio F, Zivadinov R Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(2).

PMID: 33671219 PMC: 7923004. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020325.