Variation in segmentation of bone from micro-CT imaging: implications for quantitative morphometric analysis
Segmentation of bone in grey-level tomographs from micro-CT imaging is critical in determining the accuracy of morphometric analysis. The degree of variability in image segmentation between and within multiple operators will be quantified and compared with automated image segmentation. Three cubes of cancellous bone were cut from T12, L1, L3 and L4 human vertebral bodies (n=12). Micro-CT imaging was performed and a global threshold was determined by 3 operators independently and automatically using Otsu′s algorithm. Bone volume, trabecular thickness, trabecular separation, trabecular number, trabecular bone pattern factor, structure model index and degree of anisotropy were calculated. Percent bias and percent random error were calculated between all operators and Otsu’s method. For BV/TV, the maximum percent bias and percent random error were 22.0% and 11.3%, respectively, which constitutes differences in individual measurements between operators of up to 0.07. For Tb.Th, the maximum percent bias and percent random error were 13.1% and 6.4%, respectively, which constitutes differences in individual measurements between operators of up to 35μm. These data highlight to users of micro-CT imaging that morphometric analysis is highly sensitive to operating parameters. The effect on measurements of cancellous bone structure of different operators can be greater than experimental differences, which can lead to erroneous interpretation of results.
Key wordsimage segmentation micro-CT tomographs bias random error cancellous bone
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 8.Batenburg, K.J. and Sijbers, J.Discrete tomography from micro-CT data: application to the mouse trabecular bone structure, Proc SPIE: Med Imaging: Phys Med Imaging, 6142:1325–1335, 2006.Google Scholar
- 10.Rajagopalan, S., Yaszemski, M.J. and Robb, R.Evaluation of thresholding techniques for segmenting scaffold images in tissue engineering, Proc SPIE: Med Imaging: Image Process, 5370:1456–1465, 2004.Google Scholar
- 12.Parkinson, I.H. and Fazzalari, N.L.Cancellous bone structure analysis using image analysis, Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 417:64–67, 1994.Google Scholar
- 19.Borah, B., Defresne, T.E., Ritman, E.L., Jorgensen, J., Liu, S., Chmielewski, P.A., Phipps, R.J., Zhou, X., Sibonga, J.D. and Turner, R.T.Long-term risedronate treatment normalizes mineralization and continues to preserve trabecular architecture: sequential triple biopsy studies with microcomputed tomography, Bone, 39: 345–352. 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Chesnut, C.H., Majumdar, S., Newitt, D., Shields, A., van Pelt, J., Laschansky, E., Azria, M., Kriegman, A., Olson, M., Eriksen, E.F. and Mindeholm, L.Effects of salmon calcitonin on trabecular microarchitecture as determine by magnetic resonance imaging: results from the QUEST study, J Bone Miner Res, 20:1548–1561, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar