
Abstract Automatic segmentation of bones in computed tomography (CT) images is used for instance in beam hardening correction algorithms where it improves the accuracy of resulting CT numbers. Of special interest are pelvic bones, which—because of their strong attenuation—affect the accuracy of brachytherapy in this region. This work evaluated the performance of the JJ2016 algorithm with the performance of MK2014v2 and JS2018 algorithms; all these algorithms were developed by authors. Visual comparison, and, in the latter case, also Dice similarity coefficients derived from the ground truth were used. It was found that the 3D-based JJ2016 performed better than the 2D-based MK2014v2, mainly because of the more accurate hole filling that benefitted from information in adjacent slices. The neural network-based JS2018 outperformed both traditional algorithms. It was, however, limited to the resolution of 1283 owing to the limited amount of memory in the graphical processing unit (GPU).
Paper, Radiation, Environmental and Occupational Health, General Medicine, Hälsovetenskaper, Pelvis, Machine Learning, Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Health Sciences, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Public Health, Neural Networks, Computer, Pelvic Bones, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Algorithms
Paper, Radiation, Environmental and Occupational Health, General Medicine, Hälsovetenskaper, Pelvis, Machine Learning, Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Health Sciences, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Public Health, Neural Networks, Computer, Pelvic Bones, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Algorithms
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 5 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
