skip to main content
10.1145/3264746.3264778acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesracsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A SSLBP-based feature extraction framework to detect bones from knee MRI scans

Published:09 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The medical industry is currently working on a fully autonomous surgical system, which is considered a novel modality to go beyond technical limitations of conventional surgery. In order to apply an autonomous surgical system to knees, one of the primarily responsible areas for supporting the total weight of human body, accurate segmentation of bones from knee Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans plays a crucial role. In this paper, we propose employing the Scale Space Local Binary Pattern (SSLBP) feature extraction, a variant of local binary pattern extractions, for detecting bones from knee images. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method has an average accuracy rate of 96.10% with an average MCC rate of 88.26%, which significantly outperforms existing intensity-based methods such as fuzzy c-means clustering and deep feature extraction method.

References

  1. E. J. Park, M. S. Cho, S. J. Baek, H. Hur, B. S. Min, S. H. Baik, K. Y. Lee, and N. K. Kim. 2016. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C.B. Chng, Y. Ho, and C.K. Chui. 2015. Automation of retinal surgery: A shared control robotic system for laser ablation. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Fripp, S. Crozier, S. K. Warfield, and S. Ourselin. 2007. Automatic segmentation of the bone and extraction of the bone-cartilage interface from magnetic resonance images of the knee. Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1617--1631.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. Schmid and N. Magnenat-Thalmann. 2008. MRI Bone Segmentation Using Deformable Models and Shape Priors. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2008 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 119--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. R. Lanfranco, A. E. Castellanos, J. P. Desai, and W. C. Meyers. 2004. Robotic Surgery A Current Perspective, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. J. Teichtahi, A. E. Wluka, M. L. Dabies, and F. M. Cicuttini. 2008. Imaging of knee osteoarthritis. Best Pratice & Researcj Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 10651--1074.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Pirzamanbin, A fully automated segmentation of knee bones and cartilage using shape context and active shape models. Lund: Lund University, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. G. Williams, A. P. Holmes, J. C. Waterton, R. A. Maciewicz, C. E. Hutchinson, R. J. Moots, A. F. P. Nash, and C. J. Taylor. 2010. Anatomically Corresponded Regional Analysis of Cartilage in Asymptomatic and Osteoarthritic Knees by Statistical Shape Modelling of the Bone. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1541--1559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. P. Bourgeat, J. Fripp, P. Stanwell, S. Ramadan, and S. Ourselin. 2007. MR image segmentation of the knee bone using phase information. Medical Image Analysis, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 325--335.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. A. Aprovitola and L. Gallo. 2016. Knee bone segmentation from MRI: A classification and literature review. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 437--449.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. R. Dalvi, R. Abugharbieh, D. Wilson, and D. R. Wilson. 2007. Multi-Contrast MR for Enhanced Bone Imaging and Segmentation. 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J.S. Lee and Y.N. Chung. 2005. Integrating Edge Detection And Thresholding Approaches To Segmenting Femora And Patellae From Magnetic Resonance Images. Biomedical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications, vol. 17, no. 01, pp. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. Y. Mun, J. Y. Lee, D. Y. Kim, and S. Shin. 2017. Extract texture-problematic femur from Knee MRI using Fuzzy C-means and Region Growing approach. International Conference on Internet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Sun, E. C. Teo, and Q. H. Zhang. 2007. Discussions of Knee joint segmentation. Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Engineering, 2006. ICBPE 2006. International Conference on. IEEE 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. C. Bezdek. Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Shen, W. Sandham, M. Granat, and A. Sterr. 2005. MRI Fuzzy Segmentation of Brain Tissue Using Neighborhood Attraction With Neural-Network Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 459--467. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Chen and D. Zhang. 2004. Robust Image Segmentation Using FCM With Spatial Constraints Based on New Kernel-Induced Distance Measure. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1907--1916. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. Szilagyi, Z. Benyo, S. Szilagyi, and H. Adam. MR brain image segmentation using an enhanced fuzzy C-means algorithm. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37439).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. F. Ambellan, A. Tack, M. Ehlke, and S. Zachow. April, 2018. Automated Segmentation of Knee Bone and Cartilage combining Statistical Shape Knowledge and Convolutional Neural Networks: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Venues. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=SJ_-Nx3jz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. C. Kirbas and F. Quek, 2004. A review of vessel extraction techniques and algorithms. ACM Computing Surveys(CSUR), 36, 2 (Jun. 2004), 81--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Udomhunsakul and P. Wongsita. 2004. Feature extraction in medical MRI images. IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. K. D. Kharat, V. J. Pawar, and S. R. Pardeshi. 2016. Feature extraction and selection from MRI images for the brain tumor classification. International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. E. B. George and M. Karnan. 2012. MRI Brain Image Enhancement Using Filtering Techniques. International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Technology (IJCSET). Vol. 3 No. 9, 399--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Y. Lee, J. Y. Mun, M. Taheri, S. H. Son, and S. Shin. 2017. Vessel Segmentation Model using Automated Threshold Algorithm from Lower Leg MRI. Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems - RACS 17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. "MRI Data," MRI Data. {Online}. Available: http://mridata.org/fullysampledGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G. E. Hinton. 2012. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, 84--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A SSLBP-based feature extraction framework to detect bones from knee MRI scans

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        RACS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems
        October 2018
        355 pages
        ISBN:9781450358859
        DOI:10.1145/3264746

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 9 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,581submissions,25%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader