首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Comparison of K-Means and Fuzzy c-Means Algorithm Performance for Automated Determination of the Arterial Input Function
【2h】

Comparison of K-Means and Fuzzy c-Means Algorithm Performance for Automated Determination of the Arterial Input Function

机译:自动确定动脉输入函数的K均值和模糊c均值算法性能的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The arterial input function (AIF) plays a crucial role in the quantification of cerebral perfusion parameters. The traditional method for AIF detection is based on manual operation, which is time-consuming and subjective. Two automatic methods have been reported that are based on two frequently used clustering algorithms: fuzzy c-means (FCM) and K-means. However, it is still not clear which is better for AIF detection. Hence, we compared the performance of these two clustering methods using both simulated and clinical data. The results demonstrate that K-means analysis can yield more accurate and robust AIF results, although it takes longer to execute than the FCM method. We consider that this longer execution time is trivial relative to the total time required for image manipulation in a PACS setting, and is acceptable if an ideal AIF is obtained. Therefore, the K-means method is preferable to FCM in AIF detection.
机译:动脉输入功能(AIF)在定量脑灌注参数中起着至关重要的作用。传统的AIF检测方法基于手动操作,这既费时又主观。已经报道了两种基于两种常用聚类算法的自动方法:模糊c均值(FCM)和K均值。但是,仍然不清楚哪种方法更适合AIF检测。因此,我们使用模拟和临床数据比较了这两种聚类方法的性能。结果表明,尽管与FCM方法相比执行时间更长,但K均值分析可以产生更准确,更可靠的AIF结果。我们认为,相对于PACS设置中图像处理所需的总时间而言,较长的执行时间是微不足道的,如果获得理想的AIF,则可以接受。因此,在AIF检测中,K均值方法优于FCM。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号