Linear vs. Quadratic Optimization Algorithms for Bias Correction of Left Ventricle Chamber Boundaries in Low Contrast Projection Ventriculograms Produced from Xray Cardiac Catheterization Procedure

Authors:
Jasjit S. Suri;Robert M. Haralick;Florence H. Sheehan
Affiliations:
-;-;-
Venue:
CAIP '99 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns
Year:
1999

Citing 4
Cited 0

Active shape models—their training and application

Computer Vision and Image Understanding
Left Ventricle Longitudinal Axis Fitting and its Apex Estimation using a Robust Algorithm and its Performance: A Parametric Apex Model

ICIP '97 Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP '97) 3-Volume Set-Volume 3 - Volume 3
Automatic Quadratic Calibration for Correction of Pixel Classifier Boundaries to an Accuracy of 2.5 Millimeters: An Application in Cardiac Imaging

ICPR '98 Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Pattern Recognition-Volume 1 - Volume 1
Correction of Systematic Errors in Automatically Produced Boundaries from Low Contrast Ventriculograms

ICPR '96 Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR '96) Volume IV-Volume 7472 - Volume 7472

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.03

Visualization

Abstract

Cardiac catheterization procedure produces ventriculograms which have very low contrast in the apical, anterior and inferior zones of the left ventricle (LV). Pixel-based classifiers operating on these images produce boundaries which have systematic positional and orientation bias and have a mean error of about 10.5 mm. Using the LV convex information, comprising of the apex and the aortic valve plane, this paper presents a comparison of the linear and quadratic optimization algorithms to remove these biases. These algorithms are named after the way the coeffcients are computed: the identical coeffcient and the independent coeffcient. Using the polyline metric, we show that the quadratic optimization is better than the linear optimization. We also show that the independent coeffcient method performs better than the identical coeffcient when the training data is large. The overall mean system error was 2.49 mm while the goal set by the cardiologist was 2.5 mm.