000129055 001__ 129055
000129055 005__ 20240228143406.0
000129055 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0151498
000129055 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:27029047
000129055 0247_ $$2pmc$$apmc:PMC4814108
000129055 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:6414466
000129055 037__ $$aDKFZ-2017-05060
000129055 041__ $$aeng
000129055 082__ $$a500
000129055 1001_ $$aLim, Hyun-ju$$b0
000129055 245__ $$aFully Automated Pulmonary Lobar Segmentation: Influence of Different Prototype Software Programs onto Quantitative Evaluation of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease.
000129055 260__ $$aLawrence, Kan.$$bPLoS$$c2016
000129055 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000129055 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000129055 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1522137739_11125
000129055 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000129055 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000129055 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000129055 520__ $$aSurgical or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) techniques can be beneficial for heterogeneous emphysema. Post-processing software tools for lobar emphysema quantification are useful for patient and target lobe selection, treatment planning and post-interventional follow-up. We aimed to evaluate the inter-software variability of emphysema quantification using fully automated lobar segmentation prototypes.66 patients with moderate to severe COPD who underwent CT for planning of BLVR were included. Emphysema quantification was performed using 2 modified versions of in-house software (without and with prototype advanced lung vessel segmentation; programs 1 [YACTA v.2.3.0.2] and 2 [YACTA v.2.4.3.1]), as well as 1 commercial program 3 [Pulmo3D VA30A_HF2] and 1 pre-commercial prototype 4 [CT COPD ISP ver7.0]). The following parameters were computed for each segmented anatomical lung lobe and the whole lung: lobar volume (LV), mean lobar density (MLD), 15th percentile of lobar density (15th), emphysema volume (EV) and emphysema index (EI). Bland-Altman analysis (limits of agreement, LoA) and linear random effects models were used for comparison between the software.Segmentation using programs 1, 3 and 4 was unsuccessful in 1 (1%), 7 (10%) and 5 (7%) patients, respectively. Program 2 could analyze all datasets. The 53 patients with successful segmentation by all 4 programs were included for further analysis. For LV, program 1 and 4 showed the largest mean difference of 72 ml and the widest LoA of [-356, 499 ml] (p<0.05). Program 3 and 4 showed the largest mean difference of 4% and the widest LoA of [-7, 14%] for EI (p<0.001).Only a single software program was able to successfully analyze all scheduled data-sets. Although mean bias of LV and EV were relatively low in lobar quantification, ranges of disagreement were substantial in both of them. For longitudinal emphysema monitoring, not only scanning protocol but also quantification software needs to be kept constant.
000129055 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$a313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)$$cPOF3-313$$fPOF III$$x0
000129055 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000129055 7001_ $$aWeinheimer, Oliver$$b1
000129055 7001_ $$aWielpütz, Mark O$$b2
000129055 7001_ $$aDinkel, Julien$$b3
000129055 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)743a4a82daab55306a2c88b9f6bf8c2f$$aHielscher, Thomas$$b4$$udkfz
000129055 7001_ $$aGompelmann, Daniela$$b5
000129055 7001_ $$aKauczor, Hans-Ulrich$$b6
000129055 7001_ $$aHeussel, Claus Peter$$b7
000129055 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2267670-3$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0151498$$gVol. 11, no. 3, p. e0151498 -$$n3$$pe0151498 -$$tPLoS one$$v11$$x1932-6203$$y2016
000129055 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:129055$$pVDB
000129055 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)743a4a82daab55306a2c88b9f6bf8c2f$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b4$$kDKFZ
000129055 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vCancer risk factors and prevention$$x0
000129055 9141_ $$y2016
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bPLOS ONE : 2015
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ
000129055 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV$$2V:(DE-HGF)$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)$$bDOAJ
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1040$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bZoological Record
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000129055 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000129055 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x0
000129055 980__ $$ajournal
000129055 980__ $$aVDB
000129055 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000129055 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED